you heard about some this morning. we feel like this a moment in history and yet we're not sure that message is fully get ago cross. i've had the chance in the last year and a half to meet with more than 200 members of the congress one on one to have a chance to explain what n.i.h. is all about. both parties, both houses, i would say all of those meetings have gone well because the case is so compelling and this is not a partisan issue. then you wonder is this something that sticks or when the real discussions are going on about decisions that have to be made, is the consequence of those decisions for medical research actually something that people are thinking about? you're in the middle of those conversations. i know the effect on defense is on everybody's minds when it comes to the sequester. how could we do a better job of

making it clear just how much is at stake here? >> it's a great question. it's interesting the person i had a chance to meet with who is here and part of the program told us quite frankly that he never thought he would need government help. he never needed unemployment insurance, he was employed living his life thinking everything was going fine and then discovered a disease in which only the work here would give him a chance to enjoy a future. he's now a strong advocate for the n.i.h. i'm afraid that many americans just don't personalize what is done here. they live in the moment rather than remembering the past and their expectations for the future. that is not the majority of americans. the majority of americans

strongly support the work that is done here and want to make sure that you have adequate funding for it. the majority of americans want sensible policies for this country. they want to us deal with the deficit in a way that provides for the future of this country. so they want to invest in research and education. they want roads and bridges. we're having a tough time breaking through the division that we have in washington. and quite frankly, the more you can do to underscore the importance of the work that you do, i think the stronger the voice will be for a reasonable solution to our fiscal problems that will permit n.i.h. to get the funding it needs on a permanent basis. so i think this point needs to be underscored more and more. the work you do here and the impact it has on our lives.

i was talking -- we had a chance to talk about the work being done in infection diseases about trying to develop a way in which we can get a flu shot that is more generic rather than every year. that's extremely exciting to me. i don't like trying to figure out when i'm going to get my flu shot and whether it works or not. the more we talk about what we can achieve in the future, what america can achieve in the future and we have to invest in it because that's america's future and our children's future. >> we're going to go to the microphones. let me ask people to be concise and have questions and not speeches if you can. try to aspire to that. start over here. >> thank you for your support of federal workers and the n.i.h. i would like to ask your opinion about a policy option that could

be helpful, that is to gradually increase the amount that is paid into social security and medicare gradually by .1% a year for the next decade. by my estimation that change alone would result in increased revenues of gradually by 0.1% a year for the next decade. by my estimation, that would be increased revenues of 1.4 trillion for the federal government. more than enough to eliminate sequestration. >> i did not mention social security because social security is not a problem in the budget debate we're having today. it is not part of the problems we are trying to deal with. it is an issue we should take up because the long-term demographics of america dictate that we have sound financial footing for social security. >> we are rather proud of the fact that we have given you a problem there. [laughter]

>> but you are also helping with the solution because you are keeping people healthier, having them work longer. you are getting it on both sides. i fully agree that part of the solution for social security long term is to have people pay on their payroll income beyond the current cap. the current cap of $100,000. if you make a million dollars, you are not paying full fica taxes. part of the solution will be to raise that cap to a more realistic level. in regards to medicare. medicare funding is already progressive. i'm not sure that the same would apply to medicare funding. to me, the easiest way to deal with health-care costs is to deal with health care expenses. you know that.

you are helping. you are dealing with the household infection rates. how you manage complicated illnesses. just treat one part of the problem. all that brings down costs because of the delivery system is reformed. all of that brings down health-care costs. you have innovative here at nih and that will help to reduce medicare and medicaid costs. >> what is the most effective way that federal employes can protest the sequester? >> thank you for that. i know that chris van holland and i'd served on a conference together and teamed up to defend our federal workforce. we think we did a pretty effective off when we tried to put a more permanent freeze on the salaries and tried to get current workers to increase their pension contributions.

you have been the scapegoat for every problem. they've just came in on an attack on the work force. they want to eliminate the military part of sequestration. it is outrageous and we will continue to defend that. our whole delegation will to everything we can. put a face on this. the reason why the federal workforce is on the attack is because it is an attack on the government, it is not an attack on what you do. go out there and say what you do and how it is important for what you do to have the certainty of a realistic budget. dr. collins was explaining that many people are making career choices could affect the capacity of our country to deal with the challenging issues that you deal with. explain that. put a face on the issue.

you are real people, you have real lives. you have families and the you are on the front line of public service. don't be afraid to point that out. help us with personalizing what you do on behalf of your country. then come help us with the issue that dr. collins talked about and that is the sense of purpose for how we deal with the budget deficit so that we can have a future for our children. >> i represent the nih assembly of scientists and it is a democratically elected group. we want to thank you for your strong support of research. we hear that your heart is a live with what we have chosen to keep our careers in, quality of life and extended health. we want to point out that these revenues that you seek also come from the creativity of

individuals that create technology, the kind of technology that needs to be acquired by the technology industry, for example. also many other sources of revenue. we just want to point out that sometimes the talented scientists and clinicians of the nih feel hampered by some of the policies and rules that come our way. we offer our help in any way that we can to try to work together with you to figure out ways to ensure the maximum creativity of a federal scientists so that the american people can get the most of their investment. >> thank you. we all have to be at the table. we need your input. we have tried to work with the same set of facts.

there is 1.2 trillion dollars of tax expenditures, that was a one-year number. the problem we have with sequestration is that it is two trillion over 10 years. the annual tax expenditure number is 10 times that amount. the upper 1% of income earners in this country get about 25% of tax expenditure benefits. so, there is room for changes in our tax code that will be encouraged the type of creativity you are talking about and allow us to have reasonable budgets and allow us to move forward as the country in a responsible and fair way. >> do we have an questions by e-mail? would you tell us what you have got there and then you will come back to the microphones. >> we have one here. the person asks, why can't

federal agencies being given an incentive for managing their funds prudently by being able to carry over excess funds into next fiscal year instead of trying to spend everything in one year? >> i think that is an excellent point. it makes no sense to have an incentive to try to spend money at the end of the fiscal year otherwise you lose it. why not spend it in the best interest of your mission and the taxpayers of this country? there should be a reward similar to the one that is suggested. it makes good sense for our country and it certainly is worthy come up to how you can put those into the budget process. >> thank you for supporting filibuster reform. it did not happen. we talked a lot about the

gridlock in the house. i also wonder how you propose if the house cannot pass a budget. also, how you can show a face of responsibility when you have had so much gridlock in the senate. >> the question deals with the gridlock in the senate because of the 60 vote threshold. the filibuster in recent years has been used an unbelievable amount of times. leader reid has hired to file 120 cloture motions in 2012 on which makes it virtually impossible to do our jobs. my own personal view, i believe in majority rule. i believe that election has consequences. i don't think we should have a filibuster. it should be decided by the majority of those duly elected. i got together with 8 of my

colleagues, including myself, a couple of months ago in an effort to try to avoid a partisan division on rules in the u.s. and its. there were four democrats, for republicans. it was a diverse group of senators including senator mccain, senator kyl, senator pryor, senator schumer. it was a group -- senator levin was our leader on the democratic side. we came up with reforms that i think will help. the cannot filibuster bringing a bill to the board. rather now where the minority cannot vote against cloture because they are doing it on a procedural basis. the bill will now be before us. it will get started in debate and voting on amendments before we have to worry about whether we need 60 votes for the threshold.

secondly, there is a limit on how you can filibuster. we can bring the president's judicial nominees up in a much quicker way. there, you have eliminated two of the potentials on going to conference. getting into conference is particularly important in going to this congress. the most significant reform, we have dramatically reduced the power of an individual senator. if you are going to object, you need to do it on the floor of the u.s. senate. you can no longer be in your hometown calling the cloakroom and st., i want to put a hold on the bill. you have to do it personally. we think this will flesh out some of those objections and allow us to move forward and a much more expedited way.

i think we made progress. i would prefer to go forward. this was done in a bipartisan way. >> thank you. i was very happy to hear you talk about increasing revenues because it is quite clear that we cannot address all of our problems through budget cuts alone. i'm concerned try to address the needed revenues only through revamping the tax codes might be insufficient. i am wondering the other streams of revenue you might be pursuing. this could increase public health by limiting carbon and are at this for and also revenues to help the budget. >> i agree with your point. the carbon tax would have several advantages. first of all, it would tax pollution at its source by reducing financial incentives through carbon.

you have positive incentives to reduce carbon. you have a more predictive revenue source in a gasoline tax. it could be a source for financing our roads, bridges, transit systems. we only had a reauthorization of our program to the end of next year. the gasoline tax will not produce enough revenue to keep the current levels longer-term. we're looking for revenue sources that are positive, that we could get bipartisan support such as a carbon tax to help finance the next transportation bill. helping us with an energy program could be the way to go. >> do we have anymore questions by e-mail? >> this is from the office of research services. has anyone attempted to put into dollars how much time is wasted creating, reviewing, and

implementing contingency plans for sequestration, particularly by high-level staff that need to constantly be in meetings on this topic? the savings from that wasted time alone might pay for some of the cuts. [laughter] >> dr. collins just whispered to me that that is true. we want your creative people here to do the work that they are trained to do. we want you to discover the next year or dread disease. we want you to figure out how to energize creative innovator is on research, providing the basic research so that the life science companies that are out there can create more jobs and do their things. that is what we want you to do. when you are distracted and doing all of these contingency plans.

worse than that, when you are holding back on what you would like to do, it is the time you spent in planning, it is the time and the energy we lose by uncertainty. i want to make right decisions, don't get me wrong. no decision at times it is better off than no decision. the uncertainty of how the future is going to be. it is way past time for congress to give you a definitive answer. as when i sought the chance to talk to the president on wednesday, i have stressed the point to get the sequestration -- and get the game plan passed said that we can give you the kind of predictability. >> that is what we would hope for. >> i have a question.

some press reports have floated the idea or the perception that forces in congress would like to push for the sequestration because that way it would achieve their goals to cap nonmilitary spending. how true is that from your perspective? >> there are some members of congress that believe that sequestration might be ok. it would reduce discretionary spending by over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. there is a hard-core group of members who are for reducing spending including military spending. they don't really care too much about the concerns that we have talked about. they represent a minority. i think most members of congress, democrats and republicans agree that sequestration is wrong, even

those who believe there should be further discretionary cuts believe they should be selective. they should not be across the board. if you have problems with your budget and you have budgeted to go to the movies and feed your family and you have a loss of revenue, you don't cut your spending equally. you continue the essentially important services for your family. we are not able to do that under sequestration. even those who believe that we should cut discretionary spending believe should be done other ways besides sequestration. most of the members of congress would support a more balanced approach. most believe that the mandatory side needs to be looked at more than the discretionary side. most believe that we need more revenue. >> can you spell out for us please if sequestration happens,

how will this affect our jobs at nih? >> i will do the best i can. if we reached march the first and if it becomes a more lengthy ordeal and we don't corrected within a matter of weeks, then administrative heads must produce the savings that are required in the fiscal year 13 budget. that is the budget we are currently in. they have about a seven month period to achieve a total savings. they can look at their total budget and figure out how to do it. when you are the nih, you have two major sources. your largest source is the grants you get for research. some of those have been held back.

that is very bad. very bad. dr. collins was explained to me the percentage of worthwhile grants, promising france and that are now accepted. it is that a modern time low. i believe somewhere around 17%. that means that, as dr. collins explains, he has to try to figure out who are the really great great opportunities verses the great opportunities and it is hard to draw that line. we're going to lose a lot of potential researchers. but it also can affect the work force. if you are a federal agency, 98% senator money is in salary, then your only opportunity to reach the target cost by sequestration is to deal with the work force.

you can look at turnover but there's not a lot of turnover. that is when you start looking at these horrible things called furloughs without pay. they're horrible. and in fact, it affects not only the morale of the work force but the services we are providing to the people of this country. there are really no good options on this sequestration. it should never take place. it should be replaced immediately and it should be replaced for the entire 10-year period. we will work hard to make sure that occurs. >> you mentioned that the nih is a mecca and we should try to make the public more aware of that and reach out as much as possible. one of the things that makes that difficult this year and a ticket to have patient groups,

other scientists come to us and learn from us and exchange ideas to proportionate cuts in our budget, including travel to have these groups come here. is there any thing congress can do by way of resolving to lift some of these onerous burdens which are kind of like mini sequesters to us. dr. collins could have a free hand to use the money more wisely and effectively. >> one of the first things i asked dr. collins when i saw him this morning was, where can use some more money so we can talk about the future? i don't like playing defense. i am proud of the years in which

we doubled the capacity of the nih to give grants. i was proud to be part of the congress when we did that. now, we have lost all of that momentum since the early 2000's because of the budget restraints. our first priority is to get our budget back into some semblance of order. hopefully, we can get that done this year. then we need to look at how we can give you additional tools. i happen to believe that your ability to interact with the international community is critical to your mission. you have got to be there. you have got to be able to get the energy from your colleagues around the world that helps your work here. it helps your mission. i think that is a very good point and a strong support this. let me, if i might, dr. collins, just point out that our economy is recovering. if you look at the stockmarket,

if you look at a job growth from it if you look at housing, our economy is coming back. if we get a reasonable plan, not necessarily a everything i want, but a reasonable plan for our budget, it is not difficult policy choice to make. if we get that done, our economy will continue to grow and i believe will take off. we can get back to the type editions of getting the tools to you to do you do best. i believe we will get there. i do. i believe that our future is very bright. we live in the strongest economic power in the world. yes, we have to be mindful of global competition. there is no question about that. things are different today than they were 10 years ago. there are countries investing much more than we are in basic research.

we have to catch up so that we can continue to lead the world in this critical area parent of this energy we have here is unique. it is important for our children's future and the global economy. i'm optimistic we will get it right. i think we have tools to get it right. i just thank you once again for being on the front lines. i can imagine the attacks that you get when you hear the attacks on federal workers, you cannot help but take it somewhat personally. so, i thank you for being understanding and sticking with this and serving your community as you do here in public service. i am convinced that america will continue to grow, that we will figure out a sensible way to deal with this issue. we will do it i hope sooner rather than later and allow you

to continue not only to make this senator proud but to provide a hire, better quality of life for the people in america and around the world. thank you. national captioning institute] cable satellite corp. 2013] [applause] >> the institute of health headquarters is in the district of chris van hole hollen. he will be our guest on this week's "newsmakers" and you can watch that sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. eastern time here

on c-span and c-span.org. >> if someone paid you to write two columns for $10,000 each. he gets the money and they publish only six. he summons the editor and i wrote tep and you published only six. the editor says we paid you. that is the standard answer. he said maybe those columns weren't good enough. here's a check for the columns you didn't print here's $1,000 back. why did he give the money back? he was entitled to keep it. yes, he was. he wanted to do business with the other party again. he wanted to be a good citizen. very rare behavior now and i admire that. >> she traces the life of the

president of the united states in "koolidge." >> what i have discovered is the worst strategy to achieve happiness in >> if you might happen is what you are striving for, you will probably not achieve it. you'll end up being narcissistic, caring about your own pleasure and satisfaction in life as your paramount goal. i have found that happiness is best thought of as a byproduct of other things. it is a byproduct of meaningful work and family and friends and good health and love and care. we get happen is not by aiming directly for it but by throwing ourselves in to projects involving ourselves and

fundamentally at trying to have integrity and being a good person. >> john mackey examines how the inherent good of both business and capitalism can lead to a better world, sunday night at 9:00 on c-span2. >> on thursday's "washington journal," we talked about executive salaries and bonuses at financial institutions. this is 40 minutes. host: christie romero is the inspector general for the sigtarp. guest: we are the watchdog over the bailout. when congress made the bailout, they wanted a very independent watchdog. we are a criminal law

enforcement agencies so we investigate crime related to the bail out and we also watch all the dollars. we try to bring transparency and bring oversight to this. that is what we are doing. host: christy romario is the inspector general and came up with a report recently that looks at executive pay for the companies that took bailout dollars. guest: pre-for those companies,

the treasury has a pay czaar and his job is to set the pay packages for each of the top 25 am pleased for each year. we did a report last year looking at pay in 2009 and 2011 and we said treasury did not fail to rein in excess of pay and awarded a multi million pay packages to the top executives of these companies. for 2012, we continued and looked and once again, treasury awarded multimillion pay packages but it had gotten worse. host: here is that report and if you want to join the conversation -- who is responsible for that? guest: treasury is ultimately

responsible. they set the guidelines on the payback in the day or roll them back. the first pay czar told sigtarp that he was under conflicting principles -- keeping companies competitive in pay but he also ultimately wanted to make sure the employees had scan in the game. --skin in the game. he came up with some guidelines. the guidelines were supposed to balance these principles. the first guideline was cash salaries should rarely be over $500,000 and should be well under it. the second guideline was recognizing the fact that these companies were bailed out and they should be targeted at the 50th percentile of a similar company would similar employees and the third, it needs to be tied to some performance goal

met later. those are the guidelines he put in place and those of the guidelines that were ultimately rolled back. host: you are talking about kenneth feinberg who was the pay czar. what kind of amount of money are we talking about? guest: they are astounding. by treasury's own standards they are excessive. we are talking about 25 people at the company's left, aig, gm, and gmac which financed cars and did some prime mortgages -- the floor is $1 million. if you work for one of those companies and are one of the top 25 employees, treasury awarded $1 million. if you work at aig, the floor is $2 million. most got well above that.

more than half of these executives the treasury approved were $3 million or more. 16 got $5 million or more. the pay adds up to $100 million. you also have to look at cash salaries which went through the roof. all of a sudden, instead of having cash salaries rarely be over $500,000, 70% of these employees got treasury-approved cash salaries of $500,000 or more we want to look just below that and sure enough, in cash, a yearly salary, 94% got approved by treasury. on top of that, pay raises and removing the long term pay that was ties to meaningful performance measures. host: talking about a report aboutsigtarp.

your report comes out and what happens? the front page of this report says treasury is still approving excessive pay, what next? guest: 1 change so we made a series of recommendations and said treasury put in some criteria. when is it a proper for someone to be paid $500,000 in cash salary or more? they did not do that. they did not make any meaningful reforms. we are saying it again we have to bring attention to this. we have to bring attention to the american people who funded these companies and their bailout. there's a fundamental fairness issue here. as people are struggling and you have the average income of americans funding the bailout at $50,000, when you look at a

gm employee who gets a $50,000 raised because gm wants to do something extra, that was the explanation -- americans who founded the bail out needs to know that. we will continue to push for change not only at the company's left in tarp but ultimately it should shed a light on how the financial crisis was in part driven by excess of pay that led to excess of risk. that is the bigger picture that has to be looked at. when you look at aig that has now repaid tarp, treasury will no longer set the pay package but is aig going to return to their past practices? it is up to the federal reserve and now regulates a ig to make sure that does not happen. host: let's hear from mark in st. paul, minnesota.

caller: the treasury is always about goldman sachs. does that have anything to do with it? guest: that's an interesting question. how did treasury treat the larger institutions? secretary gunnar who has just left the treasury department did not actually come from goldman sachs. he was at the federal reserve bank of new york before he was treasury secretary. it raises an important issue because throughout the history of this bailout, there has been a different treatment for the large institutions than there have been for the smaller institutions. that is of critical importance. one example of that is all the energy that went into trying to get the larger institutions out of tarp, while forgetting about the hundreds of smaller banks in tarp and there are still 300

small institutions involved as well as struggling homeowners who still need assistance from tarp - we have been trying to remind people not to give up on the people who still feel the effects of the financial crisis. host: battleground, washington, independent line. caller: i have been following this fairly closely for the last five years and i have noticed brian lamb is had excellent interviews and i have seen sheila bair from the fdic. the biggest point that everyone seems to be missing is it is not whether or not people are receiving bonuses or who has paid back on much of tarp, who cares how much they have paid back? the big point that they are missing is the glaring contradiction.

the last four decades as factory workers lost their jobs and small farmers got wiped out, we were receiving these lectures about the free market, free market capitalism, about the loss of free market capitalism and free trade agreements wiping out the american middle class. it was because we had to bowed down to the religion of the free market and what has never been repaid beentarp is the double standard that when these plutocrats got into trouble, all that garbage about the free market science and milton friedman got thrown right out the window. it is the double standard, the hypocrisy, the contradiction -- that can never be repaid, thank you. guest: the caller raises a really interesting point. this is something i put a report out on this past week. one thing we learned in 2008 was that our financial system

was very vulnerable to these highly interconnected financial institutions, too big to fill up companies and not only were they highly interconnected with each other -- we learn that their failure threatened american jobs and american pensions and mortgages. that was really shocking. i don't think regulators were prepared to deal with that. even with the bailout coming and preventing the failure of some of these institutions, there was trillions of dollars in american wealth that went out the door. that is a root cause of the financial system that has not yet been addressed. that is one of the things that needs to be addressed. the other thing that needs to be addressed is the risk-management practices which were woefully inadequate at the same companies. those are two things that need to be addressed ultimately. we can look at where we are at with the bailout and how much has been paid back but the bigger question is how did we

get to a bail out and do we have a financial system that is more stable and less prone to a crisis in the future and that is the real question. host: stick a look at the numbers -- this is a graphic from npr showing how much they got and how much they paid back. guest: allied actually owns 14%. we own 22% of general motors of there is still large institutions. the nearly 300 smaller institutions are still left in

tarp the numbers may be small but they are institutions that cannot get out of tarp. the smaller banks are still having trouble and tarp was never supposed to be about bailing out the larger institutions. it was supposed to be about helping everyone including struggling homeowners and that money is not going out the door sufficiently. host: from twitter -- guest: many americans feel strongly about this and they are looking for justice and accountability. we are a criminal law enforcement agencies so we do investigate crime related to tarp. our investigation has resulted in criminal charges against 121 people and criminal charges are not evidence of guilt but they are charges that have to be

seriously dealt with. as of december 31, -- excuse me, jan., 83 people had been convicted and 35 were sentenced to prison. we are awaiting trial on the others and prison sentences and more people will continue to go to jail and more people will look at best and for accountability. our jurisdiction is not as broad as the entire department of justice. ours is related to tarp but we will continue to do our best and the department of justice is our partner. we are an investigative agency and they are prosecutorial. host: new york, independent line, welcome. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. how do they stop this? who is responsible for the large tarp payouts to these companies?

chrysler was in trouble back in the reagan era and he paid back the money. why did we bail out chrysler and gm? this is what i don't understand. the gentle man you showed a picture of, kenneth feinberg, he was not secretary of treasury but he was in the treasury department making payments. isn't he the same one that that was supposed to go to the victims of 9/11 and they never got paid and it went to all these various programs?

guest: let me see if i can address these issues -- who is responsible and how does this stop? for a report, one of the critical pieces -- the companies have got to stop demanding access to peg. -- excessive pay. if your bill that, you have to stop pressing against the limits. you have to have an appreciation for the situation you are in and the fact that you are bailed out by people who don't have extras and are on tight budgets and that has not happened. historically, they have pushed back on pay and they want pay raises and higher cash salaries. they don't want to have their pay tied to performance goals and that has to stop. ultimately, they propose pay for their top employees. they've got to stop proposing excess of pay. we have grown to expect that from these companies and that is sad to say. treasury is supposed to be the

one that stands up for the taxpayers and holds lawn on excess of pay and that is not happening and that's where it has to stop. treasury has to follow its own guidelines. we are finding that the companies are pushing back on treasury but they are not finding any resistance. treasury is allowing that to happen. treasury sets the pay largely by the company's proposals. we have said that treasury has got to independently dig into each of these people. there is not a lot of people, only two companies at this point, general motors and gmac which is now allied. day in and see if that pay is appropriate. appropriate it is based on what they were paid before the bail out. is it appropriate for a taxpayer bailout company? is that appropriate? why are these people getting

raises that went from $30,000 to $1 million. one person got one million- dollar race. if a company proposed 18 races, treasury gave 18 races. -- raises. you have to wonder why. is that person getting a $100,000 raised and others are getting more? how is it that their services are so valuable that it is worth that much? what we said to the treasury new pay czar is how you justify this? we got explanations that parroted what the company said. we have -- we have said that they have to dig into this. host: here is a letter from the

new tarp pay czar defending the actions of the treasury department. it cites the percentile of what other executives get. is that a fair defense? guest: is only one part. you need to keep them competitive but you don't want to make it so comfortable that they don't have an incentive to get out of tarp. you also have to look at these companies which are left in tarp after four years while other companies have gotten out. you cannot compare it to a company that is not being funded by taxpayers. one thing in our report was that the new peg czar report it would be normal for these executives to be paid cash bonuses over $500,000. maybe if they were not still in a belt out. host:, power does the pay czar

have? guest: he has a lot of power. he sets the pay the top 25 of these companies so he has a lot of power and has to balance that. the way that can feinberg determine the balance was to use these guidelines. using these guidelines, it would strike that balance of rolling back the guidelines, the balance shifts at goes toward what the companies are asking for. host: we're talking about the report from sigtarp. from pennsylvania, democrats line. caller:hi, as i have been listening to you discussing this very interesting problem, it sounds to me that through the screening processes that they used to hire these people in the corporation -- the screening process as we used to hire people in treasury is doing a remarkable job of removing

people's morals and integrity. i cannot understand how people reach the upper echelons of power and, all of a sudden, have their moral compasses phlebotomized and they don't think anything is wrong with that. in your reporting, have you gotten any inside to this situation about how people can just be so crass? guest: i think the caller raises an important point that we have addressed in our report. we reported on these companies in proposing excess of pay and high cash sellers a multimillion-dollar pay packages, cash salaries that are extremely high -- they just like a complete appreciation for the situation they are in.

they want to be treated as business as usual. it is not business as usual not as long as the taxpayer is funding you. that is a fundamental premise that seems to be missing at these companies. these companies continue to push back. gm actually went to the treasury secretary and said give us relief from these pay limits. at the same time, they are not offering to pay back taxpayers. it is an important point to say that the companies have got to understand the situation they are in. part of the problem is a lot of these companies want there to be no public memory of the bailout. they want people to say that yes, that happen but now it is over and we have moved on and everything is well that everything is not well in america. we're still recovering slowly and we are still covering these companies and we are still continuing to put them on our shoulders so it is not business as usual. host: you mentioned the

treasury as signing off on these executive pay which has been called excessive but also the responsibility of the companies. why shouldn't the companies ask for more money? just to play devil's advocate -- vague ask and treasury denies, why should they stop? guest: at some point, they have to take responsibility. they came to the government had in hand and said save our bacon. you need to appreciate was bail you out and the situation that americans are in now and how our economic recovery has been slow. you have to take that into account and you cannot continue to push for more and more and more. we really need to see some appreciation on behalf of these companies. there certainly is this free market system as the earlier

caller pointed out that this is not a free market if you are being bailed out. you are in a special situation. host: valley cottage, new york, republican. caller: good morning, this is a complicated subject. i know you have had the author of "reckless endangerment" on the show. i understand they are on the public dole but the real problem is what caused this. i will not make this too long but, right now, the justice department is suing ds &p 4 $5 million because of the libra scandal. in the 1960's if you bought a security or bond you paid to have it rated and later on they switched that and the people who were selling the security or the bond get a rating.

if i don't get a good rating from somebody, i will go to his competitors so that was part of the problem which was never addressed in dodd-frank. also the simple fact that during the clinton administration and alter the bush administration, they did nothing to rein in fannie mae and freddie mac which mr. bush could have done with his hud critz terry and reduced the mandates from over 60% that they wanted subprime mortgages. this is what caused the collapse. right now, fannie mae and freddie mac are making it more difficult to get a mortgage but they are going through the fha. this is part of the problem -- not that we don't have enough regulation, is that we don't have good regulation or people enforcing those regulations. guest: he raises a lot of

really excellent points. you have to come back to the causes of the financial crisis. you are right, the rating agencies played a part in the financial crisis and subprime mortgages played a part and one of the parts that was played it was pay that was encouraging these companies to take risks, and that is why it is so important for us to review the reports that we did. i will give you a perfect example. you had loan officers at banks who were being paid bonuses and pay based on how many loans they created, not whether they were good loans, not taking into account whether they would later defaults and cause significant losses. there are a number of different causes of the financial crisis. we tried to report on that and

we are doing a lot of work in this area to say what has not been dealt with. fannie and freddie are not dealt with under dodd-frank. there have been some reforms to our financial system but there needs to be significantly more. dodd-frank sets up a framework but not all those rules are implemented and there are important standards that need to be set by the regulators and by treasury. what we are worried about is trying to protect americans in the event of another financial crisis or another potential bailout. but one of be in a situation where one of these country -- companies can bring down all of these losses in american jobs and american pensions and mortgages. we cannot be in one of those situations again. we will continue to raise the alarm and say there has to be more work done. it is not going to be easy and

there is a lot of heavy lobbying. one of the things that is quite disgusting is you have all these companies to take the bailout dollars and then turn around and repay treasury and then they put all this money into lobbying against reform. they want to go back to usual. it is going to take a lot of courage and stealing -- steely resolve from treasury and regulators to get a better situation. part of the framework is there but a lot needs to be done. apart is the interconnectedness i talked about earlier. we can't have a situation where companies are too interconnected to fail. risk-management has got to improve. you'll have a situation where a lot of the company did not understand the risk they have related to subprime mortgages. another example that shows it continues today -- libor manipulation. j.p. morgan's london whale, where they did not even understand their risk, let alone management.

and regulators have to supervise that to protect all of us. host: our caller mentioned gretchen mark gunston, a writer at "the new york times," -- you can find it on the web site, the video library but archives. rich demuro, special inspector general for tarp, -- christy romero. she has had prior roles at sigtarp and was also at the u.s. securities and exchange commission who -- and served as counsel to mary schapiro and christopher cox. and investigative financial fraud, insider trading and other violations of securities law. she spent time as a litigator. her jd is from brigham young law school and she went to school here, old dominion university. the special inspector general

from tarp and a recent report. treasury continues approving excessive -- excessive pay. on twitter -- is this all hindsight? guest: it is interesting. one of the things we constantly report on is things that should have been done better. you have to respect that a lot of decisions were made with a sense of urgency. but the compensation decisions were not. there was plenty of time to set up a good system for that. and even for the discount -- for the decisions that were made in a rush, it is really important we point out how things could have been done better. let's say we get and the situation where there is another crisis. and treasury and the regulators are running around with a sense of courtesy in an emergency trying to fix things. ultimately you have to have a playbook. you have to look at what happened last time, and also at our record on what could have

been done better. so they have two playbooks and make better decisions and we do not end up repeating the mistakes. host: independent caller. ron. caller: thank you for your work in this area. you have been mentioning general motors and chrysler and gmac, and i know this because i work in the auto industry and i have relatives who work in the auto industry, that cerberus, private equity from out of new york, they owned chrysler before and right after the financial collapse, and owns a 51% of gmac. cerberus is not involved in now, but are you looking at compensation of people who had something to do with cerberus? and the gentleman mentioned something, the other caller, about standard and poor's. the reason cerberus got 51% of

gmac, which was the moneymaking part of general motors, their achilles' heel -- general motors gave ford and gm junk- bond status in 2004 and 2005 and it kind of led to the chain of events where servers got a hold of gmac. cerberus was run by people from both the bush administration's, investors in managers. i think you should also be looking at them as well. guest: i think the caller raises an excellent point. these were complicated. when you look at some of the bailout and what came out of it, you have to look at the structure and the owners of structures that happen when the government forces restructurings, and as a result, new owners come out. cerberus was one of those. as far as their compensation, it does not fall under

treasury's per view, which is really just the top 25 employees at the top companies themselves. you raise an interesting point. one thing i want to raise and make clear, we are conducting audits, reviews, investigations on anything related to tarp. and i want to just throw out our hite -- hot line information. we have a hot line of the public can call in and give information that they think we should be looking at. any information that they know. often the public knows a lot more may be that we don't know. maybe you know somebody in the industry. maybe you work in one of the industries and have information. i want to give our hot line information because it is very, very critical. www.sigtarp.gov, but there is also a phone in line --

we have had extraordinary calls coming into the hot line and have been able to do fantastic work, i think, on behalf of the people who has given us information. host: what are people calling about? guest: a lot of our calls result in issues about holding. really, the tarp housing programs have had a lot of problems. a lot of frustration for people who could not get the help -- help they need. let me give you one example. there are con artists out there right now will call up struggling homeowners and they say, don't pay your mortgage and don't talk to your lender, and i will guarantee that if you pay me i will make sure you get your mortgage payment lowered through the housing program called hamp, or sometimes they say the obama plan. they will say i am an expert. or they may say they are affiliated with the program. they take people's money and a

skip town. what we do is we kept them, we put handcuffs on them, and we put them in jail and make them stand trial and a for their crimes. these people are being convicted and going to jail. this is an unscrupulous, to have a crime that is targeting people who are struggling during this financial crisis. we get calls related to those. we are trying to educate homeowners about that so they did not become victims in the first place. but a lot of people will lose their homes of the situation. host: christy romero, special inspector general for tarp. the question about the teeth -- getting back to this question of executive pay, if treasury signed off on it, what can sigtarp really do? guest: we make recommendations to treasury and a half to be dealt with.

we also report to congress. we send these reports to congress and congress helps put teeth in it. but a ultimately we have a lot of recommendations that are not implemented and they need to be. this is an example that shows how bad it can be a treasury does not implement the recommendation. i am looking forward to a new secretary of treasury coming in to talk about those recommendations and changes that can be made. and we will not give up. we will look at 2013 pay. we will not stop. because alternately we are here to protect taxpayers. host: amelia, ohio. democrats' line. caller: how are you? my question is about the tarp situation. these people who were sent to prison or being investigated for the tarp, i think these people -- the american people to not really know who these people are. there should be published a

list or something brought forward so the american people can see this on a monthly basis and kind of gives a feel and know who they are. i think also it might work out as a streamline to it in prison these people -- to it in prison these people and pay for their part -- imprison these people and make them pay for their part. guest: we are trying to get the word out on what we are doing in the law enforcement side. we put press releases out every time there is an arrest or bring criminal charge or conviction or bring prison sentence on www.sigtarp.gov. we will continue to get the word out and look at this. you raise an interesting point about bringing money back. that is something i want to raise. not only do our investigations

result in prison sentences or other very serious repercussions, but also we bring money back in terms of court orders for the return of money to victims or the government. so far, we have been able, as a result of our investigations, to get orders from the court for more than $4 billion to come back. that is our way of turning our keep and making sure there is accountability. because there can be accountability in terms of prison sentence but they have to pay the money back. when the rip-off the government or bring they rip off struggling homeowners or than others, there needs to be accountability in terms of dollars. host: charles and louisiana on our republican line. where are you calling from in louisiana? caller: across the -- across the river from shreveport. the lady on your show, what a breath of fresh air, trying to

do right for us poor folks out here. god bless you and your family. my point is -- you got to bear with me. christopher dodd was walking down the hallway on c-span cameras, they captured him saying this -- why aren't you going to run for senate? his response was, countrywide is not going to let me. senator dodd and conrad both got for janel loans through countrywide. senator conrad just retired and like -- like senator dodd did not run for senate. those are his words, it c-span has it on camera. i want to know if you investigated him. thank god for c-span. guest: thanks, charles but let me point out two things.

first of all, we are working for everyone. if you ask me who i represent, i represent you, i represent everyone -- because we all pay for this bailout and we continue to pay for this bailout. as to what we are investigating, this is where i have to be sensitive. i will try to get as much transparency as i can. i have federal agents and investigators working for me, and because these are criminal investigations we have to be very, very careful on what we say in terms of who we are investigating and why we are investigating. part of that relates to the safety of our own agents. you can understand, sending our federal agents to arrest someone, i need to ensure their safety. for that, i cannot really talk about exactly what we are investigating. here is where i am going to recommend -- what i am going to recommend to you. one thing you can start to track -- where there has been

something public, like a criminal charge or arkansas rest or somebody who has been convicted and on to jail, we put out press releases on all of us and i encourage you to go to our website and look at that. what you can do is you can sign up to receive our press releases so you can see each time we do this. 120 people have already been criminally charged that result of our investigation. host: last caller -- plymouth, wisconsin. independent line. caller: good morning from plymouth, the wonderful heartland. i think it is disgusting what they do. but i wonder where they could get the idea -- that they can rip the taxpayer of 400 of millions of dollars with impunity? try the united states senate. 1400 days without passing a budget. yet it is mandated in law, that harry reid and his pals are supposed to pass one every year. who is doing the investigation

for that? host: before we let you go, what do you think about this report that sigtarp put out specifically looking at executive pay at bail out companies? caller: of course it is disgusting. but the senate gets paid for doing nothing. i wonder where they get the idea from? -- raise an important point. anybody who tries to rip off -- guest: you raise an important point. anybody tries to rip out -- representative off the taxpayer is reprehensible. we are coming out very aggressive on anyone in that investigation. those who may be thinking about that or doing that now should take a warning by the fact we are sending people to jail. host: christy romero is special investigator for tarp -- sigtarp for short. >> a look at the automatic

spending cuts scheduled to take effect march 1. half the cuts are from the pentagon. we will discuss that with ray locker. and a conversation about the use of lethal force against suspected terrorists. then we will talk about the 22 anniversary of the family and medical leave act. washington journal, live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. tonight, former president bill clinton speaks to a gathering of house democrats. new secretary of state john kerry meets with the canadian foreign minister. then a military farewell for leon panetta. senator ben cardin talks to employees at the national institutes of health.

>> first lady helen taft on discussing politics. >> i had always had the satisfaction of knowing almost as much he about the politics and intricacies of any situation. i think any woman can discuss with her husband topics of national interest. i became familiar with more than politics. >> helen taft, whose husband, william howard taft, was the only man to serve as president and supreme court justice. c-span is new original series, first ladies, image and influence. produced with the white house historical association, sees in one begins presidents' day, february 18, and 9:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> former president bill clinton discussed the issues of jobs, immigration, health care, and gun-control.

he is introduced by maryland congressman steny hoyer. >> i understand the next speaker does not need an introduction. but then i would not have anything to say. so you know -- thank you, thank you, thank you. for over 20 years, bill clinton has been a determined evangelist for the american dream. the voters of this country put him in the white house twice. not only because he understands what the american dream is all about, but because he also has a gift for explaining why our party is so committed to defending and promoting the dream. during his eight years as president, he oversaw record job growth, 22.7 million jobs created. he also became the first

president to balance the budget four years in a row. the stock market went up 226%. it went down 25% under george bush. the years of his presidency were a time when our middle- class felt secure. it was a time when our economy created opportunities for more people to afford college. i have supported a constitutional amendment to repeal the 22nd amendment, which says that people cannot reelect a president for a third term. the chairman of the judiciary committee co-sponsored that with me. he was an opponent of term limits. i went up to him after the election and said henry, i'm going to put that bill in again. he said fine.

on tuesday, we came back. henry was sitting on one of the seats. he said, i do not want you to put my name on that bill. henry, you have co-sponsored this for five congresses. i discussed it with my staff and they say if we pass that amendment, bill clinton may be reelected. when i asked him why, he told me. it was a reflection of the respect and fear they have about bill clinton. he has continued to set his sights on service. after eight years in office, he had seen the terrible effects of poverty and illness of those living in the developing world.

in launching the clinton global initiative, he continues to widen the constellation of challenges in which he has applied his extraordinary talents and energy. limits on religious freedom, every impediment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. after president of the united states, he could only become president of the world. the praise the respect he receives from both sides of the aisle says big volumes about his character. the man he defeated, former president george h. w. bush said, if clinton were the titanic, the iceberg would have sunk. it has less to do with this sharp political acumen and more to do with his deeply held values and ideals.

bill clinton believes in an america that is tied in a single garment of destiny. our fates are bound together and we should work together. a man from hope continues to work to give hope to millions. bill clinton has taught us that while hope is a powerful motivator, it takes more than that to build the future we dream of. as we revitalize our discussion about how to renew the american dream, i ask you to join me in welcoming a great proponent of the american dream, the honorable william jefferson clinton. [applause]

>> thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. >> we miss you. >> thank you. sometimes, i miss you. [laughter] most of the time, i like what i am doing. i want to thank steny for the introduction. we talked a few days ago when he said, what do you want me to say? i said, tell them you like

playing golf with me. and that you did not throw the games. i want to congratulate and thank nancy pelosi for her tireless efforts in the last election cycle and all of her leadership. thank you, joe kelly, my fellow new yorker. i understand she had to leave, but i was always reassured to see her on television when i was worried about the outcome. i want to thank steve israel, who i think has been one of the most thoughtful people in the house and who proved once again that if you really want to be

successful in the long run in this business, you have to be good politics and policy. you have to think about what we're going to do and how will affect people. i have the honor of campaigning for a lot of you in the last election. i am very excited about the new members. [applause] not only because if i were a member of this caucus, i would be in the minority, which i think is a good thing, but because the diversity extends far beyond the categories visible to the eye or that you can put in an adjective. there's so much difference here in terms of life experience and

knowledge and understanding the various aspects of are extremely complex society that i think he'll have a real chance to do some phenomenally creative and effective things. a few years ago, a writer wrote an interesting book called "the wisdom of crowds." since then, international surveys of how the brain works. if you took a room and you put in this room 20 or 25 people of average intelligence who cared about a set of problems and you put in another room a genius with a 200 iq and you kept feeding them questions and

problems, over time, the crowd would make a better decisions than a genius. it is one of the reasons that we should be supporting diversity to build unity, the old harmony, build a better future. it is one of the reasons that i think where our party is and what we are trying to do so important. i want to offer a few observations about this. i went through both the last few election cycles. i remember i told hillary in the process, we are going to take a terrible licking. i said, i do not want this on my conscience.

i would like to talk about what this means. i read the president's remarks and i was very appreciative of what he said and i know vice- president biden was here. i want you to think about what you were going to do the next two years, where you want to end up, and how this is a part of a long-term struggle. people sometimes ask me if i'd was upset when the whole pattern of budgets i tried to establish was repealed after president bush won and the congress went back to trickle- down economics. you have to understand, nothing is permanent. it is an ongoing enterprise.

one of the oscar-nominated movies "lincoln" is about one of the most important areas of history. the heroic battle to pass the 13th amendment banning slavery. if you ask most americans about lincoln, i know he was the president during the civil war. he was assassinated, he issued the emancipation proclamation. they know about the gettysburg address. that is about it. maybe they know the second inaugural address -- the finest inaugural address ever given. almost nobody knows the story of the 13th amendment. most americans do not even know the emancipation proclamation could only free the slaves and the southern states that have seceded.

almost nobody knows why he decided to try to get it through congress when if he had waited until after he was inaugurated, it would have been much easier to pass. he was mortified by the fact that he could not get 75% of the states to ratify the amendment. he practiced politics. what you are doing is a noble thing, but everybody will be watching. if you were doing that, there will be live coverage around the clock. we would all know, but would we understand it? it requires us to maintain a level of direct relationships with the voters that in former times was mediated by the way politicians related to leaders and newspaper editors and other things.

i would like to talk about this. the last election was an election where people chose an inclusive future. they also were pretty savvy. they decided they believed in arithmetic after all and they did not like it when somebody said we will do this and we will give you all these tax cuts and then when asked about what it meant and how we can pay for it, they said, see me about that after the election. that was a good thing. and they voted against going back on a lot of what we had done. make no mistake about it, this is not just about repealing obamacare and repealing much of what i did. this is about repealing much of the 20th century. somebody asked me, why are you doing this?

i am too old to relitigate the things i thought had been settled in the 1960's and 1970's. [applause] i want us to worry about the 21st century and how to make the most of it. i believe that we are in an interesting and delicate paradoxical position. if we are clear about where we are and what we have to do. there was a brief period at the end of the cold war where the united states was the only

military, economic, and political superpower. i did my best to prepare us for an era in which we would still be the leading country in the world, but which others would enjoy on president and prosperity and once that happened, whether we really only military superpower was a question of how they decided to spend their money. and whether we were a political superpower was a question of how they decided to spend their diplomacy. more going to live in a competitive world. one of the challenges all of you will face is that americans of almost all political stripes have been notoriously resistant to arguments based on what our competitors are doing.

health care, economic policy, education policy, you name it. it is really interesting for a country that is so sports crazy because i can see the harbaugh brothers getting ready for the super bowl, examining what every single player was doing and trying to figure out where the weaknesses were. more going to have to get comfortable being honest about the results the competition gets from doing x, y, and z. we led the world in the development of widespread usage of cell phones, but now on a national basis, south korea speeds are four times as ours. communities are increasing their capacity.

chattanooga, tennessee, did and now they're becoming a health care center. google is spending all of that money in kansas city. we have got to be more comfortable in talking to people about what works. what is working that other countries are doing. the diversity of the representation in the house will be helpful for that. i think also we have to learn something from how historically brave actions by your predecessors in this caucus played out in the electorate. when were they rewarded? when were they punished?

and later rewarded? i cannot tell you how many nights in the white house, every single night before i went to bed, for months and months and months after the 1994 election, i thought about the people who were defeated because they voted for the economic program, because they voted for the assault weapons ban. i knew exactly what happened. i thought a lot about those who survived and why they did. as you look ahead and you decide, what are we going to do about the budget, what are we going to do about having the democrats branded as the party of jobs and innovation for the future? make no mistake about it, the republicans will try very hard

not to make it as easy for you to win by-reference. there were some places where we won because people saw what they wanted to do when they did not like it. all of you sounded better. we now are going to have to have an affirmative agenda for jobs and innovation. [applause] you have got to do it. it is important to do immigration right. and to do it as soon as possible. i think it is important to take some action now that it is possible on the issue of gun violence, but it is important to do a right. i could go across america if we had time and tell you who survived very well voting for the assault weapons ban and the brady bill in 1993 and 1994,

and who did not. and why. i want to say a little about that. but i think that the people who disagree with us will not make it quite as easy to draw the contrast by the things they do and say as they did last time. that is the message i got out of the house republican meeting. we're going to put on a happy face. it is easy to sneer at that, but depending on how you navigate troubled waters, and supporting the president's agenda in developing what i hope

you will do, your own ideas how to promote jobs and innovation and try to win support, it is important to recognize that we have never -- except in the searing moments of the debates in presidential elections -- or every year for the state of the union -- general images over a specific moments is a strategy of theirs is not necessarily guaranteed to fail. there are lots of things we can talk about on the politics. i want to talk about the substance. you were elected because people thought you were a better candidate. because you had a message people believed in.

because you ran a political culture that would accept you as a potential member of congress. people did not blame our party for the conditions they face today do not like. i think the most important thing is this is a job. it is a job. keeping it requires you to do it and to sell it simultaneously. it is normally harder at midterms because it is more difficult to draw the contrast in a way favorable to you and because the turnout goes down. we will talk more about that

later. let's focus on the job. here is the dilemma. we do have a long term the debt problem. that does not mean austerity is the right response. i know -- i do not know what she said, but she is an impressive person. here is the problem. paul krugman is right but you cannot be deceived by what he is right about. when interest rates are below inflation, that tells you there is insufficient demand for money. therefore, you have to keep poking at the economy to get it going again. since the republicans won the house, the federal reserve has tried to fulfill that role and put more money in the economy

because they always like austerity when democrats are president. that sounds more cynical than it is. we like to spend taxpayer money on things we think are investments in the future. they like to spend taxpayer money on tax cuts and defense programs they think are okay. their position to decide the debt was the worst problem in the world, it is highly determined by who is in the white house. as all of you know. we have a big debt problem and it cannot be solved right now by conventional austerity measures.

that is why paul krugman is right. you get in to the downward spiral and drag the country back into recession. we need a jobs program. i have a lot of ideas on how you can do it. we need a strategy to promote innovation, started businesses coming keep the manufacturing sector expanding combat repatriate and bring back investment in america, money that is the overseas. i personally would favor letting a lot of that money be brought back if a certain

percentage was investing in an infrastructure bank in america. [applause] the rate of return on the infrastructure is so high, including i.t. infrastructure, you could sell the investments like you would bonds. i will give you 6% tax-free rate of return if you invest here. if you could get some of that repatriated money invested, a lot of pension funds would invest, looking for higher returns than they can get in any conventional bond issue, but have to have solid guaranteed returns. i think we could do a lot of this stuff, but you need a program to do this. i remember i did an event for congressman delaney and i

called our mutual friend. he said more in five minutes about how to create jobs than i have heard anybody say in this campaign so far. people were listening. i think it is really important -- we are not and the majority and they will not do that. when i left office, one of my regrets was that i did not raise more sand about things i thought should be done because i did not want to waste any time talking about things i knew we could not pass the congress. i had this amazing argument once in the white house with chairman greenspan. about the position financial derivatives did not need to be regulated like agricultural commodities were.

only rich people could buy them and they were fully capable of making those judgments. if you do not have any capital requirement and transparency requirements, no class of people is immune from error, ignorance or foolishness. at the time, the republican majority did not want to fund the sec. they were exercising their oversight function. i did not say as much in public as i did in private because i was trying to get a lot done. i later came to regret that. sometimes starting the debates is important. we need an economic strategy. if you do not have growth, you cannot fix the debt problem. [applause] if you look at what is happening, it is true that the deficits are going to be below

a trillion dollars for the first time in several years. it is true that the economy is beginning to grow again. this is almost like the reverse of what we did in 1993. i was perfectly well aware that if we raise taxes and cut spending, it could have a dragging effect on the economy, not nearly as much as having low growth or then having interest rates that were too high. so our gamble was that the explosive effect of lowing interest rates with a booming bond market and having more disposal income over five-10

year period to invest in america's future would more than offset putting the hammer down by raising more money and cutting spending. it turned out to be a good gamble. it will make sense here again. but timing is everything. so i think you should have a budget that does not defy arithmetic and does not follow in the trap that we had for 20 of the last 32 years which is you always get more money when you cut taxes. but it is also important that we recognize if there is literally no growth you don't get many revenues anyway. what we need is a jobs program with all of its elements and a longer-term plan to bring the debt down that action set rates

as growth picks up. yesterday, there was this little chart in "u.s.a. today,"" for example it said budget break down slated for -- defense 18 and interest on the debt 7. the only reason that is seven is because interest rates are so low. if interest rates were what they were when i was president, that number would be 15. where would you get the other eight? where would you get the other eight? >> that is why you need a long- term plan. you don't want it to go to 15 overnight. you want to put the brakes on it, do it gradually and work it

down. we need to put jobs and income front and center. future growth we need a plan for that. i think that is important. the other thing i would like to say is that today primarily with the executive branch but something that you have to watch. we democrats own the health reform issue now. i personally think it was the best bill you could have passed in the congress with the circumstances given, the filibuster problem in the senate. i think we were always going to pass the health care reform. there's a lot of good things in that bill. it really matters how it is implemented. if certain problems come up

that need changing you need to get caught trying to change them even if you can't pass it. because we have to do this right. we can't keep spending at 17.8% income on health care and none of our competitors above 11.8. we can't afford it. we just can't do it. i think it is very important to identify those areas -- you saw that study about a third of the money was wasted but it could be saved without compromising health care at palm we should try to incentivize better decisions on the bart of citizens so we can -- on the part of citizens so we don't spend a lot of money on sickness.

i urge you not to walk away from this issue because a bill was passed. the implementation of this bill and getting our income closer to that have of our major competitors that have beth health outcome than we do. if you look at pennsylvania, every year under state law publishes the cost of certain services, surgeries, and publishes the outcome by hospital. it is clear every single year there is no connection between the price paid and the result achieved even within pennsylvania, which is a large state with a significant amount of diversity and, therefore, good enough for us to learn

from. stay with this. make it work. prove we were right to do it. it had to be done. one of the reasons that medium family income before the crash was lower than it was the day i left office after inflation is that so many employers wanted to give their employees pay increases had to spend it on their health care premiums instead. i think it is important. it will be important long-term to balancing the budget. i don't have an answer to this problem, but i wish we could do is not permit it under budget rules. as all of you know the republican answer on all the health care issues, including medicaid and medicare is get it

off the books. give it to the states. end the budget problem. privatize a lot of medicare. end the budget problem. the problem is they are proposing people to take the less expensive and throw them into a more expensive system and the market will make the more expensive less expensive. all it does is clean up the government books. i get that. but our problem coming back is we can't score now what will be the end result of changing the whole payment system for example. paying for performance instead of procedure which i think has to be done. all of these things that has to be done are not necessarily score able. [applause] i don't know how you're going to do this.

but i think this will be very important. it is the sort of lumbering underneath the radar economic issue as well as the health care issue that i think there plenty of people in this caucus that are knowledgeable enough, creative enough to know what to do about it. let me mention two other things. i believe that we will get immigration reform for all the reasons that everyone has pointed out and i think it is a good thing. i world like to point out, i would be as forward leaning on this issue for any number of reasons. i read a piece the other day that said there is now a standing annual demand in america for 120,000 with computer science degrees and despite the fact that you have college grads driving cabs you

only have 40,000 with computer science degrees every year. until we find out how to close that, that and the general stem gap, we should have immigration to help. i would give every college graduate in america that comes from another country whatever incentive i had to let them stay here and work until we have solved these problems. that's what i would do. [applause] the irony of our electing all these children of immigrants to congress and letting everyone tell their story is there are several countries that have developed economies, including australia and canada. they have a higher percentage of their population than immigrants than we do. we're back to where germany is

because of all this. we need to work it through and again, details matter, but i think it is really, really important to do it and do it right. the last thing i would like to say is it is obvious as a political strategy that it is very much in the interest of our party and the values and the programs and the directions that we believe in to make the electorate to look like in the previous years. i think that is obvious. i also think we should not rely on demography alone. begin a conversation with people who are not as extreme as a lot of candidates they voted

for in the republican party that we can get to be for us. and i see this whole gun issue as an opportunity not a toxic landmine. but it depends on how you do it. one thing that disturbed me when i was here serving that i saw carried forward and manifested in 2010 in some of the elections is, we've had too many people who consult with us and tell us how to do things. they do polls and here's the five things that you did and four of them is really popular and this is a hot issue to so talk about one through four. just think about that. would there be a successful marriage that took that position? would there be a successful

business enterprise or sports team or any other kind of relationship that depends on trust if you took that position? in my state of arkansas we call that walking into someone's living room and seeing a huge pink elephant and you don't get far by telling them how pretty the sofa is. that is wrong. if you're going to stir up the storm over immigration, health care, taking up easier access to the polls a priority, if you're going to do these things you have to alternative into them, not away from them. you cannot assume that people -- oh, that is not my demographic, i have nothing to say to them and they have nothing to say to us. one example, i went home to arkansas.

there were hundreds in this group, about 70 had passed away since we started this even but one of the people was this unbelievable old-fashioned democrat. he came up to me, he looked at me and says don't let them blow this gun debate bill. i thought he was going to say, you know, i've been effective like everyone else by all this propaganda. we got to do this. we got to do something on this. this is not responsible. he says no, i'm not talking about this.

he lived in a town of 1,300 and it is the biggest town in the county. it is not our demographic. but he said i got a friend that owns dozens and dozens of guns and wished he owns more. he's a collector. he has more guns than anybody you know. i don't get this stuff in washington. he said i don't know how anybody could be against doing a background on everybody who buys a gun. if i get them from a gun show i ought to do a background check. i will tell you something else he said, you can't walk through my house without stepping over the guns. i don't need more than 10 bullets in an ammunition clip. [applause] he says my point is if you walked into this house you would say let me get out of

here without getting shot. it is important to turn -- not to give up on anybody, talk to them. the worst that can happen is people say we're not crazy, all these people sage you're trying to end the rights to second amendment then may listen to you on the four thing where is they do agree with you. but they can't hear the four things if they don't know where you are on the fifth issue, whatever it is but in this case i'm talking about guns. that's the only political advice i want to give you. you start up the storm with the health care thing, explain it and make sure it works. don't let it go because it is in law and it is someone else's problem. [applause] it is also a complicated issue. you may need to change it.

the same thing is true in this gun debate. i think we ought to stay with this issue but you can do it in a way that recognizes that people are out there that are not supposed to be our demographic but they are thinking about this too. they are not making a living as part of a washington lobby group. they were sick when these children were killed. a lot of people where i grew up were asking themselves, if that young man had to load three times as often as he did would all those children have been killed? people out in the country make a living -- this is a big part of their lives and ask question, could anything be done? what about any other place where more than a few people were killed?

they are more likely to figure out the answer to that than most of us who don't live with this every day. so turn into this. treat these people as our friends, our neighbor, people we share our country with. i think you got a great opportunity. look, the country is thriving because we are diverse, we have a great technology base, we have a great research base, we still have immense advantages. i think we're going to be fine. we have to learn to compare ourselves with the competition that is not threatening, not negative. we have to have a jobs agenda that is affordable and realistic. we need a 10 year plan. when interest rates you're going to have imposed austerity because we can't stay with the

debt this big at reasonable interest rates. do it all in the same spirit that you took out there in this last election. i think you're going to be fine. it is a great time to be in public service. there is no reason to be negative about the future. now that you won this race in large measure on what have the american people did not want, we have to create a future that they do want. thank you very much. [applause] >> having observed a steady improvement in the opportunity and well being of our citizens, i can report to you that the

state of this old but youthful union is good. >> once again in keeping with time-honored tradition, i have come to report to you on the state of the union, and i am pleased to report that america is much improved and there is good reason to believe that improvement will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union, not the state of our government, but of our american community. and to set forth our responsibility in the words of our founders, to form a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war. our economy is in recession. the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. yes, the state of our union has never been stronger. >> it is because of our people

that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong. >> tuesday, president obama delivers this year's address live on c-span with our preview program starting at 8:00 p.m. and the president at 9:00, followed by the gop response and reaction. the state of the union, tuesday night, and c-span, c-span radio, and seized on the torque -- c-span.org. >> he sends them in. he gets the money. the published only six. he summons the editor and says, and wrote the ten and published six. what is the editor said? we paid you. that is the standard answer. coolidge said, well, maybe the columns were not good enough. -- columns you did not print

why would he give back the money in the context of $20,000? that was his business lesson, philosophy wesson, because you wanted to business with the other party again. he wanted to be a good citizen. i admired that. >> amity shles traces "coolidge" a."cspan's "q + >> john kerry met with the canadian foreign minister today. they spoke about foreign relations, iran's and a clear program, and the keystone -- nuclear program, and the keystone xl piepline. -- pipeline. >> he is my first guest.

i hope everybody understands this is meant to underscore the strength of the relationship we have, and we are grateful for it. we do not agree on the toughest issues. we begin with hockey. i played a little bit, and since i am a bruins fan, we have clashed in many ways. he, from ottawa, is a fan of the senators, and i want you to know it is the first time i ever heard anyone talk well of senators. [laughter] i am grateful for it. today was the first of what i know will be many very productive sessions, and the reason for that is that canada and the united states share the same values. we have a history and heritage of our people that is

unbelievably connected. we have the same entrepreneurial spirit. we have the same core beliefs that everybody ought to be able to find their place in life to do better. we also share something else that is important -- $1 trillion of a bilateral trade relationship. that is hugely important to both of our countries, to our economies, and to our citizens. canada is one of the largest, most comprehensive investment relationships we have in the world that supports millions of jobs in the united states, and today the foreign minister and i agreed to try to discuss ways that we can grow that and even make it stronger, and there are ways to do that. our border with canada happily is not a barrier. it is really a 5000-mile-long connection between us, and it is a central part of the daily

pulse of our relationship. today we talked about progress beyond our border, and an initiative in which prime minister harper and president obama announced last year, and we are improving our cooperation now in keeping our nation secure against threats without unnecessary burdens at the border to the degree we can facilitate. we want to do that. we talked about our dynamic energy relationship. canada is the largest foreign energy supplier for the united states of america, and many people in america are not aware of that. many people think of the mideast and other parts of the world. canada is our largest supplier, and our shared network of electrical grids keep energy flowing both ways across the border. as we move forward to meet the needs of a secure, clean energy

future on the shared continent, we will continue to build on our foundation of cooperation. our neighbor to the north is also one of our most able, global partners. on issue after issue, whether cooperation with nato, to promote security, stability around the world, or our efforts to mitigate climate change to international climate negotiations, the major economies forum, the climate and clean air coalition, all our joint work to advance human rights to the osce and the organization of american states, in every one of these efforts, canada and united states are united for progress. we also discussed our common efforts on iran. the p5 plus 1 partners are unified, and we're committed to preventing iran from securing a

nuclear weapon. we will continue our dual-track policy of both pressure and engagement. i want to underscore to iran -- the window for diplomacy is still open, and we have agreed to meet iran again in two weeks in kazakhstan. we have made our position clear. the choice is really ultimately up to iran. the international community is ready to respond if iran comes prepared to talk real substance and to address the concerns which could not be more clear about their nuclear program. if they do not, then they will choose to leave themselves more isolated. that is their choice. i would like to thank the

foreign minister for canada's leadership on all the global challenges we face together in conflict zones like syria and mali. canada has stepped up, and canada is helping our humanitarian response. in our own hemisphere, canada is a strong advocate for strengthening democracy and the rule of law throughout central america, the caribbean, and i look forward to working with the minister as a partner on regional issues that affect the americas, including later this year when we will meet with the foreign minister of mexico to decide ways as to how all of north america, which we talked about, can actually work effectively together. with all the issues on a crowded agenda, i am pleased to be able to say that canada and the united states stand shoulder to shoulder and work together as partners, as allies, and as trusted friends.

and i look forward to our cooperation, mr. baird. thank you for making me your first visit today. i appreciate it, and i look forward to discovering innovative new ways in which we can do even more and do better. thank you. >> thank you. thank you very much, mr. secretary, a great privilege and honor to be your first foreign minister to visit you here at the state department. thank you for the priority and the confidence you place in the relationship with canada. that is tremendously important. the united states has been phenomenal friend, and i think that leaders in the governments have accomplished a great deal. obviously for us, the number one priority continues to be job creation, economic growth, and i appreciate the opportunity to talk about a wide range of issues that we seek to tackle, to help encourage job creation and economic growth on both

sides of the border. the detroit river international crossing is a priority for canada, and we have been pleased with cooperation we have received in washington and in lansing, michigan, and we look forward to getting this huge job-creation initiative moving forward in the months and years ahead. we had a good discussion and exchange on energy policy. the keystone xl pipeline is a huge priority for our government and for the canadian economy, and i appreciated the dialogue we had. president obama and prime minister harper both assumed a 17% reduction in emissions as part of the copenhagen accord, and that continues to be a priority with canada and our plan to phase out coal- generated electricity generation. i appreciated the opportunity to discuss other issues

involving security. i share canada shares the huge concern with nuclear iran perspective. we need that to get beyond iran's support of terrorism, their human rights record, and the threat of a nuclear iran is the biggest threat to peace and security, and i appreciated your strong comments on this. i share the view that a diplomatic solution is possible. we support the p5 plus one initiative. we support sanctions against the iranian regime. we want them to change course and rejoin the international community. we had a good discussion as well with respect to syria, and

i think concern of all of civilized humanity, with the horrors going on and the huge challenge and problem of chemical weapons. i appreciate the chance to talk about human rights and our strong commitment to working to support and defend freedom around the world. the fight against international terrorism is the great struggle of our generation, and we are strong and solid partners with the united states. [speaking in french]

thank you again for your time and your leadership. >> thank you, sir. [indiscernible] >> we will start with cnn, thank you. >>the vast majority of top security officials in the previous administration supported the syrian rebels. were you briefed about this plan when you were in the senate, and what do you think about the plan? do you think is time to start arming the rebels? what do you think of the mixed messages coming from iran, the foreign minister, where the president has said he would be open to talks with iran? the foreign minister had some nice things to say about you, but the supreme leader said direct talks are not possible. do you think there are prospects for a deal, and do you

have a plan to move this forward? >> that was three questions. >> 1 plus 1 does not equal 2. >> well done, i am impressed. [indiscernible] i beg your pardon? i am taking stock every day. next time i will ask you to ask half a question. let me answer that. the first part of your question, let me say that i do not know what the discussions were in the white house and who said what, and i will not go backwards. this is a new administration now. i am a new secretary of state and we are going forward from this point. my sense right now is that everybody in the administration and people in other parts of the world are deeply distressed by the continued violence in

syria. there is too much killing, too much violence, and we obviously want to find a way forward. there are serious questions about aqi, al qaeda in iraq, coming in and other violent groups on the ground. it is a very complicated and very dangerous situation. everybody understands it is a place that has chemical weapons, and we're deeply concerned about that. i would just say to you that we are evaluating. we are evaluating. we're taking a look at what steps, if any -- diplomatic -- particularly might be able to be taken in an effort to try to reduce that violence and deal with the situation. when we are prepared to tell you, you will be the first to know. we will let you know. we will evaluate this as we go forward. i knew the foreign minister and

i talked about this at length, at length, and we both share a deep concern about what is happening there. i am going to focus on it quite considerably. on iran, we are deeply concerned about the arms that went into yemen. i think the yemenis need to speak to that first, before we do, but i want to emphasize the announcement the iranians themselves have made in a letter to the iaea in which they have announced a different kind of centrifuge. it is concerning. it is disturbing. my plea to the iranians -- or

my statement -- is a clear statement. we are prepared to let diplomacy be the victor in this confrontation over their nuclear program. the president has made it clear that iran is prepared to talk about a peaceful nuclear program. iran has a choice. they have to prove to the world that it is peaceful, and we are prepared to sit reasonably and negotiate how they can do that and how we can all be satisfied with respect to the united nations requirements in the effort to do that. or they can choose to be more isolated, as i said earlier. it is really their choice, not ours, as to which way they want to go. the administration, the

president has made it clear that his preference is to have a diplomatic solution, but if he cannot get there, he is prepared to do whatever is necessary to make certain that iran does not have a nuclear weapon. >> hi, there. congratulations, senator kerry, and welcome. one have question -- keystone. president obama made a point of emphasizing the need to confront climate change. does that bode badly for keystone? and a quick one about concerns over obligations that canadians have been involved in the last couple of recent terror attacks. >> with respect to the keystone, secretary clinton has put in place a very open and

transparent process, which i am committed to seeing through. i can guarantee you that it will be fair and transparent, accountable, and we hope that we will be able to be in a position to make an announcement in the near term. i do not want to pin down precisely when, but i assure you, in the near term. i will not go into the merits of it here today. i take great respect, as i did in my comments earlier, to the important energy relationship with canada and the importance of the overall relationship, but we have a legitimate process that is underway, and i intend to honor that. >> we had a good discussion with respect to keystone. we appreciated the secretary's comments at his confirmation hearings. we spoke about making decisions based on science and based on fact. obviously, when it comes to the environment, i think we have

like-minded objectives. mr. harper and mr. obama have both set a 7% reduction in emissions. we have worked together on reducing emissions in cars and trucks. canada is aggressively moving forward on our plan to ban and phase out dirty coal-fired electricity, and i think we all share the need for a growing economy to create jobs. we share the desire on energy security in north america, and we also share the objective of protecting our environment for future generations, and those will be areas where we will continue to work together. [speaking in french]

merci. >> thank you very much. >> thank you very, very much. we appreciate it. >> appreciate it. thank you. >> what i discovered as i got older and more mature, the worst strategy to achieve happiness is to make it your primary goal. if you make happiness what you are striving for, you will not probably achieve it. you'll end up being

narcissistic, self involved, caring about your own pleasures in your own satisfactions in life as your paramount goal. what i found is that happiness is a byproduct of other things. it is a byproduct of meaningful work and family and friends and good health and love and care. we get happiness not by inning directly at it, but by throwing ourselves at projects, involving ourselves in fundamentally try to have integrity. >> in a "conscious capitalism," john mackey discusses how the inherent goodness of capitalism can lead to better world. sunday night on c-span2. like us on facebook.

>> the old north church is boston's most -- most visited historic site. over half a million people come here every year. they come here because of the events that happened on the night of april 18, 1775. but most people do not realize is that what actually did happen here on the night of april 18, 1775 is still a general -- genuine historical mystery. we had very few records about what actually occurred on the night that paul revere house plan got carried out in this church. we know from mr. revere that there was a plan and hitt -- and it had been set up with the charlestown alicia. he said it up on sunday. -- charlestown alicia. he said it up on sunday. we do not know who helped carry -- carry it out. >> on american artifacts on

sunday at 7:00. >> the defense department held a ceremony for outgoing secretary of defense leon panetta with remarks from general dempsey, president obama, and mr. panetta. he said he will officially stepped down once the senate confirms a new defense secretary. the president has nominated former senator chuck hagel. this is just under an hour. ♪ [applause]

♪

>> review. ♪ ♪

["yankee doodle" plays]

>> ladies and gentleman, please stand for the playing of the united states national anthem. >> present arms. >> present arms. ["the star-spangled banner" plays]

>> please be seated. [indiscernible]

>> ready. hut. ladies and gentlemen, general dempsey. [applause]

>> mr. president, secretary and mrs. panetta, ambassadors, members of congress, men and women of the armed forces of the united states, especially our wounded warriors, and we cannot forget bravo. i was hoping bravo would be out there for the inspection of troops, but apparently jeremy thought differently. it is an honor to be here for this event. we're here to show our profound respect and thanks to secretary panetta. i recall play "the tempest," which is a nice metaphor, and i like to think of you as the prospero of public service. the secretary has used his arts to imbue a sense of public service in generations of the men and women. and like that knowledgeable duke, he now asks us to let our

indulgences set him free. secretary panetta could not have served so well at the fatefully without the untiring support of his wife, sylvia, and his family. and so we thank you for your selfless service that have made your husband's contributions possible. [applause] it is clear secretary panetta has mastered the balance of service and self. last week a clip of you was played on nbc's "meet the press" of you from 1989, and you have barely changed. i am sure your mediterranean diet has helped, olive oil for your skin, garlic for your heart, and red wine for everything else. you speak often of your italian heritage, and it is no secret

your mother wanted you to be a concert pianist. so is fitting on this day in history in 1908 sergei rachmaninoff premiered his symphony number two in st. petersburg, russia. rachmaninoff was a technical pianist. history records he rarely missed a note despite the enormous complexity of his compositions. but you chose to use your hands to orchestrate other kinds of efforts. you worked both ends of pennsylvania avenue. you and sylvia advocated for the purity of public service. then the nation called again and you answered again. so for the past four years you have led those in the intelligence and defense communities, those trusted with protecting our nation and our families. you have led the fight for the proper amount of resources. you balanced the threat of external attack with the threat of internal insolvency.

you once said diversity in america is as old as this nation itself. you did more than just speak about it. you took action. you have insured our forces will be able to draw upon the very best this nation has to offer. you have overseen the fielding of new capabilities to meet the threats of tomorrow, and you have demonstrated that steadfast commitment to families and troops wherever they are in the world. your many trips to afghanistan dedicate that only too well. tonight when i depart for the winter snows of kabul, i will carry your support to those troops and i will think about you and the potential that at some point in the future you will enjoy that warm california sun. i have been thinking a lot about what you will do about after you give up your public service.

you talked about wanting to write a book. it could be a tom clancy novel. here is some advice -- get it cleared first. [laughter] i can only imagine that you might be influenced by fellow changeless monterey notable john steinbeck. he described in detail the life of immigrants, farm workers in california. in the little time i have had in the last few days, i have thought of alternative titles for your parable about the individual and the institution. so here goes. instead of "east of eden," one could be "east of the potomac." or instead of "the grapes of wrath," i would humbly suggest "the nuts of taedium." you will recall that "taedium" is latin for "boredom." utur time has been anything b boring. you could convert one of those

bestsellers into a movie. i hear james gandolfini is available to play you again as he did. tony soprano's character was pauli walnuts. while gandolfini had to wear a wig, he captured your service. for those five decades you have never yielded to cynicism, you have always believed in the goodness of governing well. your character and competence have set the example. in 2009 you told the graduating class of the university of maryland to go forward knowing you are greater than the challenges of your time. you have made our nation safer. you have made our men in uniform and women stronger. and you have prepared us to meet the challenges ahead in our time and in the future. for that, you have earned our

eternal esteem. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce our commander in chief, president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. please be seated. in the years between the world wars, a young married couple in italy packed up what few belongings that they had and boarded a boat for a new world. they passed under the statute of liberty, and went through the lines of ellis island. carmelo and cramelina panetta had no money and spoke little

english. but they had a dream of a better life. they worked hard. they went west to california. they started a family and taught their sons that if they studied and worked, if they gave back to this country, that they too could share in the american dream, so today we pay tribute to their son, leon panetta, a man who has not simply lived up to the american dream, but has helped to protect it for all of us. leon, our presence here today, members of congress, deputy secretary carter, general dempsy, and members of the joint chiefs, service secretaries, and the men and women of the

greatest military that the world has ever known, all this is a reflection of our personal appreciation to you and the gratitude of a nation that you have helped keep strong and free. by the time i came into office, leon panetta and was regarded as one of our finest public servants, with an extraordinary career across more than four decades. he and sylvia have settled into the good life. their beautiful monterey, their beloved walnut farm, and leon will deny it, but i hear he was growing restless, he wanted less time on the tractor, more time in the office, less time in california, more time in washington, interacting with the west wing and members of congress. who wouldn't? [laughter] so we gave him his wish.

leon, i will always be grateful that you agreed to return to public service, and, sylvia, i am so grateful that you put up with him. your leadership of the cia will forever be remembered for the blows that we struck against al qaeda and perhaps the greatest intelligence success in american history, delivering justice to osama bin laden. [applause] by then, leon had every right to expect that he could return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a

testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents opening their homes up to g.i.'s headed to the pacific. perhaps it was leon, who served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense, in every action leon panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind -- taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are

coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred obligation to our troops to take care of them like they have taken care of us, we are improving treatment of warriors, setting up support of families, and helping our newest veterans transition to civilian life, and that includes jobs our veterans need as we do nation-building at home. because we believe in opportunity for all americans, the tenure of secretary leon panetta, the son of immigrants, a first-generation american, will be remembered for historic progress in welcoming more of our fellow citizens to military service,

for the formal and final repeal of don't ask don't tell, for opening combat roles to our incredible women in uniform. in short, for making our military and our nation that much stronger. because we forged a new defense strategy, we will be better prepared for the future, better prepared to meet the threats that we face without a larger military footprint, better prepared against cyber attacks, better prepared to advance our interests in the asia-pacific region, and after more than a decade of war, better prepared for the broadest range of contingencies. keeping us prepared will be the mission of my nominee to be the next secretary of defense, a combat veteran with the experience, judgment, and vision our troops deserve, chuck hagel.

and since we are now just weeks away from the automatic cuts to federal spending, including defense, let me say this -- there is no reason, no reason for that to happen, putting our fiscal house in order calls for a balanced approach, not massive indiscriminate cuts that could have a severe impact on our military preparedness. so here today, for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of all these men and women in uniform, and all their brothers and sisters in uniform that they represent, now is the time to act, for democrats and republicans to come together in the same spirit that leon panetta always brought to public service -- solving problems, not trying to score points, doing right for the country, not for any particular political agenda, sustaining our economic

recovery, balancing budgets. leon knows something about it, but also maintaining the finest military in history. leon, this too will be part of your legacy, for no one has raised their voice as firmly or as forcefully on behalf of our troops as you have. you have served with integrity and decency and grace. you are a reminder of what public service ought to be. you have led with heart and you have led with humor. indeed, they say that you have never seen our wounded warriors smile as wide or heard them laugh as loud as when they get a visit from their secretary of defense. whatever the challenge, leon, you always give it to us straight, sometimes in words that cannot be repeated in public.

[laughter] today, we want to make sure to thank sylvia and the entire panetta family for sharing their husband, their father, and their grandfather with the rest of us, for sharing bravo, the first dog of the pentagon. sylvia, leon's service has been your sacrifice, and we promise this time he really is coming home. leon, from your first day in uniform until today, your dedicated service to america has spanned nearly 50 remarkable years. as you review these fine troops one last time, as you return home and walk on your farm, know that the grand arc of your life speaks to our larger american story, where you can say with confidence and pride that you have fulfilled the hopes that brought carmelo and cramelina panetta to these shores all those years ago.

you made them proud. you have helped keep alive the american dream, for not only your children and grandchildren, but for all our children and grandchildren, and for that we will be truly grateful. leon, as your parents would say, grazie. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. ladies and gentlemen, our secretary of defense, leon panetta. [applause]

>> thank you very much. mr. president, i am deeply touched by your moving words, about me, about my family, more importantly about the men and women who serve in the department of defense. all of us are truly honored by your presence, and i thank you. let me also take this moment to thank michelle and jill biden for the outstanding work they have done in leading the joining forces initiative, which has provided great support for military families who have done so much for us. marty dempsey, i appreciate your

kind remarks. marty and i have testified before congress. it was the 11th time yesterday that we have done that. and we have also done 10 press conferences together. we are developing a very convincing case for collecting hazard pay in these jobs. [laughter] as we used to say when i was in the army, there is not anyone i would rather be in the foxhole with than marty dempsey. i cannot tell you what a privilege it has been to work with you and to work with all of the service chiefs. we have dealt with some very tough issues, and there is no way, no way that i could have done this job without your

support, without your loyalty, and without your dedication. members of congress, leaders of the administration, leaders of the department of defense, distinguished guests, many dear friends who we have known over the years, sylvia and i are very thankful to all of you for coming here today. this is without question the fanciest sendoff i have ever gotten in washington. [laughter] let me remember the words of president harry truman, who once said, "if you want a friend in washington, get a dog." and that is just what i did. and i am grateful that bravo is here today. bravo was in all of the meetings

when we planned the bin laden operation, and he also sat in in many sensitive meetings and discussions i had in the pentagon. i want you to know that he has never told a soul what he heard. [laughter] he is definitely not a leaker -- at least according to that definition of the word. [laughter] you have heard of the movie "zero dark 30." the producer is considering a sequel called "zero bark 30." it has been 50 years of public service, and i will and always cherish the deep and lasting friendships that i have made in washington. and i am extremely grateful that

so many of those friends could be here this afternoon. i have spent a long time in this town. as the son of immigrants, as the president pointed out, i have truly lived the american dream. being an italian-american, in congress, at senior levels in the executive branch, it has been for me a very unique experience. i have never lost my awe by the sight of the capitol and the white house at night. it is still a very special experience. i remember when i was first elected to the house of

representatives, there was a member that the president may recall by the name of frank, from chicago, who came up to me and said, "panetta. that is an italian." i said, "yes, it is." he said, "good." he said, "i want you to join the italian caucus." of course, i was not going to say no to an italian from chicago. [laughter] he said, "great." he said, "we don't do much on issues, but we eat good." [laughter] and that was true. many years later, when i came to langley as president obama's director of central intelligence, i got a mug from my family with a big cia, standing for "california italian-american." in all seriousness, mr. president, i want to express my

deepest thanks to you for the opportunity to serve this country again as a member of your administration. it has been a tremendous honor and privilege these past four years, and especially now as the 23rd secretary of defense. i hope that in some small way i have helped to fulfil the dream of my parents, the dream that they wanted, and a dream that all of us want, of giving our children a better life. it has been for me a hell of a ride. i will never forget the pride and exhilaration when i walked out of the white house after the president announced the success of the bin laden operation, and

i could hear the chants of those people who were gathered around the white house and in lafayette park yelling, "usa! usa!" thank you, mr. president, for your strong support in what was a very tough decision. the memory of that operation and the team that helped put it together, both the intelligence team and the military team, will be with me forever. i will remember traveling to combat theaters and bases around the world, looking into the eyes of brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line every day for this country. i will remember the moments when we have honored veterans of past wars and when we have been inspired by service members and

wounded warriors returning from today's wars. and i will always remember the moments of grief, when it this nation has rendered final honors to fallen heroes and when we have had to comfort their families. writing notes and condolences to those families who have lost loved ones has been for me my toughest job. these moments of selflessness, these moments of sacrifice, of courage, of heroism give me a renewed sense of pride in our country and gives me a sense of optimism for the future. i have witnessed a new generation of americans ask themselves what they could do

for their country. and i have seen a profound difference that talented men and women with a sense of duty and sacrifice can make in the life of this nation and in the life of our world. for more than a decade of war, our democracy was dependent on the men and women of the united states military to bear the awesome burden and to preserve our freedom. they have done everything the nation asked them to do and more, and i will have no greater honor in my life than to have been able to lead them as secretary of defense. i learned a long time ago that there is not much you can accomplish in washington on your own. you need a team behind you. and at the department of

defense, i have been blessed with an exceptional team, from senior civilian and military leaders all the way down through the chain of command, and together i am proud of the important achievements we have been able to accomplish for the nation. we developed and we have begun implementing a new defense strategy for the 21st century, which protects the strongest military power in the world and meets our responsibility to fiscal discipline. we are bringing, as the president said, more than a decade of war to a responsible end, ending the war in iraq, giving the iraqi people a chance to secure and govern themselves, and in afghanistan, our campaign is well on track to completing that mission. we are committed to an enduring relationship with the afghan people so they too can govern and secure themselves in the future.

we have kept pressure on al qaeda and are going after extremists wherever they may hide. and we have shown the world, we have shown the world that nobody attacks united states of america and gets away with it. [applause] we are keeping faith, keeping faith with and caring for our returning veterans and wounded warriors. i am particularly proud that we have expanded opportunities for everyone to serve and our military, in a democracy, and in a democracy, everybody should be given a chance to meet the qualifications needed to serve this country.

it is a basic value that we fight to protect. despite the progress we have made together, there's no question that there remain some very significant challenges, dangerous instabilities abroad, budget constraints, political gridlock here at home, but one thing i have learned is that you cannot -- you cannot be involved in public service and not be optimistic about the future. i am confident that under the leadership of the president and the leaders of the congress that we can and must stay on the right path to build the military force we need for the 21st century. winston churchill once wrote, "the future is unknowable, but the past should give us hope." this is a time of uncertainty,

but my career in public service gives me hope that the leaders of this nation will come together to resolve the challenges facing this country and to seize the opportunities for the 21st century. we have overcome wars, we have overcome disasters, we have overcome economic depressions and recessions, we have overcome crises of every kind throughout the history of our country, and throughout our history, the fighting spirit of our fellow americans has made clear that we never, never, never give up. our forefathers, pioneers, the immigrant families that came here all fought together to give our children that better life. we cannot fail to do the same. none of us in public service,

none of us in public service could carry on that fight without the love and support of our families. everything i have been able to accomplish in my life, in my life, life and life together, has been because of the support of my family -- my immigrant parents, my family, my sons, their families, but most of all sylvia. we have been married 50 years. she has endured extended absences and long hours that come with public service. but she has always been there, and i will never be able to thank her enough for her constant love and support. her valentine gift is both of us going home together. [applause]

it has been the honor of my life to have served in the position of secretary of defense, and wherever i go, whatever i do, i will thank god every day for the men and women in this country who are willing to put their lives on the line for all of us. they have responded to the call of the bugle, with courage and with selfless dedication to the country. my prayer as i leave is that we all have the same courage and dedication to protecting our nation, the united states of america, the home of the free and the brave.

god bless america, god bless you, and god bless the men and women in the department of defense. [applause] >> attention.

armed guard. pass review. forward march. ♪

♪

[applause]

♪

[applause]

>> ladies and gentleman, please stand for the departure. [applause] >> coming up next on c-span, senator ben cardin. after that, christie romero. after that, reducing waste in the federal budget. on the next "washington

journal" the automatic spending cuts are scheduled to take place on march 1. we will discuss that with ray locker. and the conversation on that lethal force against suspected terrorists. our guests are christopher and ers and john bellinger on the use of drones. we will also talk about the family medical leave act. "washington journal" saturday at 7 a.m. eastern here on c- span. >> city improvement and the opportunity and well-being of our citizens. >> once again, keeping in time honored traditions, i've come to report to you on the state of the union. i'm pleased to report that

america is much improved. there is good reason to believe that improvement will continue. >> my duty tonight is to report on the state of the union and not the state of our government, but of our american communities. to set forth our responsibility and the words of our founders, perform a more perfect union. the state of the union is strong. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war, our economy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. yet the state of our nation has never been stronger. >> it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is stronger. >> on tuesday president obama

delivers this yours address live on c-span. it will begin at 8 p.m. eastern, followed by the gop response and your reaction. the state of the union on tuesday night on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.com. >> senator ben cardin spoke in bethesda, maryland today. he talked about sequester budget cuts that are set to take effect on march 1. this is an hour. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> that was a nice response. >> it's wonderful to see you here this morning at the national institute of health where we have the great fortune

to have was united states senator ben cardin. welcome to all of you and those who are watching over the web. i want to say a few words about the senator and he is going to address you and we will have time for questions and answers. and we have ways to receive those for people who are here and over the internet. and we will make sure to respond to all directions from which those questions may come. >> for those of you with who live in maryland and about three quarters of the people who work at n.i.h. have that residence, this is your senator. he is become a national leader on retirement, security, the environment, homeland security, minority health and health disparities and he is been a consist president supporter of the national institute of health and our mission and the work we

do. he was elected to the senate in 2006 where he currently serves on the finances, public relations and business committees. he serves as co-chair on the security commission in europe. prior to this he represented mary mayor's third congressional district in the house of representatives. and before that in the maryland house of delegates where he served from 1967 to 1978. he was speaker. he is a champion for medical research support for maryland's world class university hopkins university of maryland and several others. and he is a strong supporter of our state's biotech industry which is not located here by chance. he's also been i think a strong supporter throughout all of this

as the importance of looking for curious for many diseases and protect our citizens from-- cures for many diseases and pro tect our bioattacks. he's been here in a town meeting. we arrive here today at a particularly interesting moment given this is the month of february and there is a threat which i'm sure he will talk about of something called the sequester which might strike us by march 1 if nothing happens. current estimates being that would reduce the n.i.h. budget for 2013 by $1.6 billion, already well into the fiscal year this would be a severely stressful situation. i know all of you here who believe in the mission come this morning hoping to hear words of encouragement about ways in which our enterprise can move

forward in this time of uncertainty. i know he is a strong supporter of a good outcome here so we're happy to have him come this morning to tell us something about that and to encourage all of you who are working hard as supporters of this enterprise, as public servants who believe in what you are doing and to tell that you this morning. so please welcome senator ben cardin. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you for your extraordinary leadership on behalf of n.i.h. it really is a pleasure to be here. dr. collins pointed out that along with senator i have the great honor of representing the state that headquarters n.i.h.

and it is a great world class institution, no question about it. we not only have the world class research facility at n.i.h., but we have the world champion baltimore ravens. [applause] we collected on the bet yesterday so we're in good spirits. i haven't finished all the wine that was sent to us from california yet so i might indulge a little bit over the weekend. but we had to endure the california dentist crafts which are not as good as our crafts in mayor. it was a sweet moment and we thank you for that. it's a pleasure to be here. joan is here representing chris part of our congressional team. we thank chris for everything he does as the leader in the united states house of representatives on budget issues there is no

stronger advocate for n.i.h. than chris. my colleague in the senate, barbara mcculski who is taking on a new responsibility as the chair of the senate appropriations committee. i tell you that's going to be good for this country because she's a real champion of responsible budgeting. but it's going to be good for maryland to have the chairman of the appropriations committee. >> i want to acknowledge john walker on behalf of the work force, thank you for being here. my main purpose for being here is to have a town hall meeting to allow you to ask questions. now i have been here for ribbon cuttings and ground breakings and very happy occasions. they are nice.

today i'm here as we start february just a few weeks away from march 1, which will bring about sequestration automatic across the board cuts that will effect the work that you do. and i want to be here to answer your questions. we are only a few weeks away from the end of the continuing resolution and it's not clear what the end of march will bring for the legal operation for you to be able to spend money. that's something we need to talk about. so i want to be here to try to answer your questions as your united states senator by first start by thanking you for what have you done and what you continue to do for our country and for our world. what you do here is world class. there is no comparable facility anywhere in the world. what you do is the best in the world.

and yes, i can talk about the economic impact that you have on our community in life sciences there are 6 million jobs, good paying jobs that depend upon the basic research that is generated from what you do here. that is critically important, the number of jobs that we have. the impact you have on maryland and our employment. and i thank you for that. but what i think is critically important is how you've changed the way of life, the quality of life for people around the world. i had a chance to meet one of those individuals just a few minutes ago. the work that dr. reenhand does on renal cancer. that is just one face of a

person who would not bes with us today, who wouldn't have and that story has been told thousands if not millions of times over. when i was a youngster i had a cousin who was diagnosed with a disease and decide shortly after. i later found out it was karen. we didn't talk about that when i was young. cancer was a death sentence when i was a young person. have you changed that here at n.i.h. the work that's been done here has given hope to so many families and have cured so many diseases. i think about the progress we've made in heart disease. when i was young if you had a heart disease, it changed your life forever.

>> you have changed the landscape on understanding our heart and how we can live healthy lives. you've changed the landscape on hiv/aids. it was a death sentence, no longer, thanks to the work that's been done here at n.i.h. you've helped us understand mental illness and changed the landscape on mental illness. so many different areas that you have led have changed what we know about diseases and how we can improve the quality of life. so i first come here to say thank you. thank you for what you have done. i know congress has a strange way of saying thank you. but i am sincere. you are the front lines of service to not only our country but i think to our world and i very much appreciate that. so let us move forward to the problems we are having. we have a budget problem in our country today. we have budget deficits that are not sustainable and how are

we going to dale with these budget deficits? that's the issue before the congress that we are dealing with. we dealt wit this week. we had president obama who visited with the democratic members of the united states senate in annapolis and it was the issue we talked about the most. how are we going to deal with our budget deficit? i could talk about how we got here, the policies that led to these deficits but i'm not going to harp than because we have to figure out how we're going to move forward. i will emphasize one point. this deficit was not caused by our federal work force. you are not responsible for their deficit. [applause] >> we could talk about the policies of going to war and how we pay for it, etc. but we have these large deficits and we need to deal

wit. let me bring you up to date because the last time i was here was a little over a year ago and we were talking about the budget control act and how we had to deal with this deficit and how we were going to bring down discretionary domestic spending and how we were going to deal with longer term solution that is required to us deal with revenues and mandatory spending and i ask your understanding as we pass the budget control act. and at the we were analyzing a recommendation that came out of a presidential commission known as the boles simpson commission. that commission said we had to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion or $5 trillion to have sustainable growth in our country. take a minute and look at the progress that we've made since

that last visit. simpson bowles which was generally recognized as a balanced approach, a bipartisan approach to deal with our deficit asked to us reduce the projected deficit by 4 trillion to 5 trillion, we have 60% coming from spending cuts, 40% coming from revenues approximately. since that time, we passed the budget control act that brought the deficit down by almost 1.5 trillion over ten years. almost all of those savings were on the discretionary domestic side. we froze budgets, as you know. you know that firsthand with your pay freezes. we did that and we were able to achieve through these budget caps about 1.5 trillion of

savings. then on december 31, it may have been january 1, because it may have been after new year's. congress passed the compromise to avoid the fiscal cliff and that contained almost yours truly $trillion of deficit cuts and most of that was true additional revenues by establishing the permanent tax rate at 39.6% of wealthiest people and permanent tax relief for middle class taxpayers. we are up to around $2.5 trillion of deficit reduction since we last talked. now we are getting to march 1. and march 1, if we do not act, sequestration will take effect. these are across the board cuts.

these were never intended to take effect. they were intended to get congress to act on a long-term budget plan, that was the intent of it. but we're at the day of judgment, march 1. and they will take effect to our national defense budget as well as our domestic budget. the cuts are actually larger on the military side. and if they take effect on march 1, if they take effect, they will cause significant damage to our country, to our national security redness, to our commitment to provide essential services to the people of this country and to our economy. let me talk a little bit about the number of jobs. there are different numbers out . there we have that it would effect the cuts here at n.i.h.

alone when you look at the direct jobs and the indirect jobs could cost our economy as much as 100,000 jobs. we've looked at the impact on our federal work force. maryland has almost 6% of its total work force are federal employees, well above the national average of 2.2%. so it will have a real impact on the state i represent, more so than other states. but then there are federal contractors who will be negatively impacted with layoffs hurting our economy. so we've got to avoid sequestration. that's another 1.2 trillion more in cuts. we need to substitute a rational plan for these ir rational cuts. that's what we need to do. let me tell you what we are

working on and what we're going to try to do. we're going to try to substitute for sequestration a plan that gets sequestration off the table not for two months or one year or two years, but for ten years. we shouldn't have these types of cuts in discretionary spending. we've already done. that look at the numbers. look what i told you originally about the simpson bowles framework. we've hit those numbers on the discretionary side. what we need to do is substitute a budget that makes sense for growth in this country so we can create the jobs, train our people, do the research, protect our people, do what is necessary but allow for economic growth and responsible budgeting. so how do you do that? i believe you will see budgets that we will be submitting that president obama will be submitting that will say that we will do three things to

continue this deficit reduction. we've already done over half but we need to do more. we need more revenue. historically revenue is represented about 19% to 20% of our economy. when bill clinton was president and we balanced the federal budget it was close to 20%. revenues today are less than 16% of our economy. we need additional revenues. and we have suggested that there are ways of doing this by looking at what we call the tax expenditures. these are provisions in the tax code that give tax breaks to certain groups of taxpayers but not all taxpayers. you might be surprised to learn when you add that up on an annual basis it equals about as much revenue as we bring in from the tax code.

that $1. trillion a year we spend in tax expenditures. not all of those are necessary. like not all spending is necessary, not all tax expenditures are necessary. we can certainly save over a ten-year period a couple hundred billion dollars by reducing these tax expenditures. that needs to be part of the equation, revenue. we also need to bring down mandatory spending. it represents -- we spend much more in mandatory spending than we do in the appropriation process in government. and you know that the anguish we go through every year on appropriations. we need to bring down our mandatory spending. the best way to do that is to bring down the cost of

healthcare which would reduce not only medicaid and medicare cost, but also the cost to our economy of healthcare. and working on those proposals. then we can save money on the military side which we have the overseas contingency operations which reflects the military operations in afghanistan which are at a high level. they are going to be reduced, we are going to have our troops out in 2014 plus in today's threat against america which is more of the terrorist type rather than another country trying to abate us we can organize our oversees operations in a more efficient way.

we should be able to do enough deficit reduction without the type of cuts for our discretionary spending particularly on the domestic side. and we should do it in a way that allows to us continue to invest in what will create the jobs we need for our economy, by educating our work force and doing the basic research we need. what is the prost prognosis of getting that done by march 1? not very bright. for the congress, for the house and the senate to reconcile their differences and get a bill to the president for signature taking care of all these issues by march 1 is not likely. it's possible. we're going to work for it, but not likely. so we will look at ways we can provide short-term relief. but i'll support that because i want to avoid sequestration. we need to get working now on the long-term substitute proposal and reconcile the differences between the house and senate and get it done. predictability is critically important for the work you do here, for researchers who commit their lives to know the funding will be here, not for two months but for a long time.

we really need to reconcile our differences and get this done. i wish i could give you clear direction on this. i wish there was a more definitive answer. gridlock never created a single job in this country. gridlock is bad for america. congress needs to act. but i tell you the debates we are having in washington are fundamental to america's future. president obama is right to insist that we're not going to solve our problems by asking spending cuts to take the full burden here, we do need revenue. he's right in his leadership on

this issue. and i am hopeful that we will see a resolution of this issue sooner rather than later. i have confidence we are going to get this done. i have confidence in this country. when i come here and see the incredible work that you do, it just energizes me and i know i speak for your federal delegation. we are going to do everything we can to make sure these sequestration orders never take effect and we have a plan that will allow the type of job growth that is important for america's future. as i said, this is a town hall meeting. i went on longer than i had planned to but i look forward to your questions in regards to the fiscal issues in washington and we also are taking up some very exciting areas. we've seen some bipartisan movement on immigration reform

we are excited about. we intend to move an immigration bill shortly, probably next to the budget the most controversial issue we are dealing with deals with gun safety. and there's been movement on gun safety. i'll be happy to answer questions you have on the gun safety issue. one of my priorities is how to move forward with the clean chesapeake bay. we have an energy issue that still is with us. there are a lot of subject that is are out. there but when you're here a few days before march 1rks the fiscal issues are the ones i wanted to bring you up to date but i'll try to answer any questions have you on any of these issues. thank you very much. \[applause] >> thank you senator. please come and join me on the stage and we have people in the aisles holding microphones for people with questions. >> let me start with one while people are getting their thoughts together and lining up.

i think all of us who work here at n.i.h. are inspired about the scientific opportunities we have now, unprecedented. you heard about some this morning. we feel like this a moment in history and yet we're not sure that message is fully get ago cross. i've had the chance in the last year and a half to meet with more than 200 members of the congress one on one to have a chance to explain what n.i.h. is all about.

both parties, both houses, i would say all of those meetings have gone well because the case is so compelling and this is not a partisan issue. then you wonder is this something that sticks or when the real discussions are going on about decisions that have to be made, is the consequence of those decisions for medical research actually something that people are thinking about? those in the middle of conversations. i know the effect on defense is on everybody's minds when it comes to the sequester. how could we do a better job of making it clear just how much is at stake here? >> it's a great question. it's interesting the person i had a chance to meet with who is here and part of the program told us quite frankly that he never thought he would need government help. he never needed unemployment insurance, he was employed living his life thinking everything was going fine and then discovered a disease in which only the work here would give him a chance to enjoy a future. i am not sure the same rules would apply to the medicare

funding. to me the easiest way to do with mandatory health care costs is to deal with of care expenses. you know that. you are helping. you are dealing with how you manage complicated illnesses. you do not to st. one part of the problem. you treat the holistic part. although the during downs cost. all of that bring down health- care costs.

try to get workers to increase the pension contributions. have been a scapegoat for every problem. they have just tried to come in with another attack of the workforce. they want the federal work force to basically take the brunt of it. look. it is so outrageous. we're going to continue -- she will do everything we can. the reason why the federal work force is on attackers because it is an attack on government. it is not an attack on what you do. go out there and say what you do. how is so important for what you do to have a certainty of a realistic budget. dr. collins was expanding a lot of people making your rejoices

that could affect the capacity of our country to deal with the challenging issues that you deal with. explain that. but if this on the issue. you are real people you have real lives. you have families. you are on the front line of public service. did not be afraid to point that out. help us with personalize a what you do on behalf of your country. help us with the issues dr. collins talks about. >> i represent the nih assembly of scientists and it is a democratically elected group. we want to thank you for your strong support of research. we hear that your heart is a live with what we have chosen to keep our careers in, quality of life and extended health. we want to point out that these revenues that you seek also come from the creativity of

individuals that create technology, the kind of technology that needs to be acquired by the technology industry, for example. also many other sources of revenue. we just want to point out that sometimes the talented scientists and clinicians of the nih feel hampered by some of the policies and rules that come our way. we offer our help in any way that we can to try to work together with you to figure out ways to ensure the maximum creativity of a federal scientists so that the american people can get the most of their investment. >> thank you. we all have to be at the table. we need your input.

we have tried to work with the same set of facts. there is 1.2 trillion dollars of tax expenditures, that was a one-year number. the problem we have with sequestration is that it is two trillion over 10 years. the annual tax expenditure number is 10 times that amount. the upper 1% of income earners in this country get about 25% of tax expenditure benefits. so, there is room for changes in our tax code that will be encouraged the type of creativity you are talking about and allow us to have reasonable budgets and allow us to move forward as the country in a responsible and fair way. >> do we have an questions by e- mail? would you tell us what you have got there and then you will come back to the microphones.

>> we have one here. the person asks, why can't federal agencies being given an incentive for managing their funds prudently by being able to carry over excess funds into next fiscal year instead of trying to spend everything in one year? [applause] >> i think that is an excellent point. it makes no sense to have an incentive to try to spend money at the end of the fiscal year otherwise you lose it. why not spend it in the best interest of your mission and the taxpayers of this country? there should be a reward similar to the one that is suggested. it makes good sense for our country and it certainly is worthy come up to how you can put those into the budget process. >> thank you for supporting

filibuster reform. it did not happen. we talked a lot about the gridlock in the house. i also wonder how you propose if the house cannot pass a budget. also, how you can show a face of responsibility when you have had so much gridlock in the senate. >> the question deals with the gridlock in the senate because of the 60 vote threshold. the filibuster in recent years has been used an unbelievable amount of times. leader reid has hired to file 120 cloture motions in 2012 on which makes it virtually impossible to do our jobs. my own personal view, i believe in majority rule. i believe that election has consequences. i don't think we should have a filibuster. it should be decided by the majority of those duly elected.

i got together with 8 of my colleagues, including myself, a couple of months ago in an effort to try to avoid a partisan division on rules in the u.s. and its. there were four democrats, for republicans. it was a diverse group of senators including senator mccain, senator kyl, senator pryor, senator schumer. it was a group -- senator levin was our leader on the democratic side. we came up with reforms that i think will help. the cannot filibuster bringing a bill to the board. rather now where the minority cannot vote against cloture because they are doing it on a procedural basis. the bill will now be before us. it will get started in debate and voting on amendments before we have to worry about whether

we need 60 votes for the threshold. secondly, there is a limit on how you can filibuster. we can bring the president's judicial nominees up in a much quicker way. there, you have eliminated two of the potentials on going to conference. getting into conference is particularly important in going to this congress. the most significant reform, we have dramatically reduced the power of an individual senator. if you are going to object, you need to do it on the floor of the u.s. senate. you can no longer be in your hometown calling the cloakroom and st., i want to put a hold on the bill. you have to do it personally. we think this will flesh out some of those objections and allow us to move forward and a

much more expedited way. i think we made progress. i would prefer to go forward. this was done in a bipartisan way. >> thank you. i was very happy to hear you talk about increasing revenues because it is quite clear that we cannot address all of our problems through budget cuts alone. i'm concerned try to address the needed revenues only through revamping the tax codes might be insufficient. i am wondering the other streams of revenue you might be pursuing. this could increase public health by limiting carbon and are at this for and also revenues to help the budget. >> i agree with your point. the carbon tax would have several advantages. first of all, it would tax pollution at its source by reducing financial incentives

through carbon. you have positive incentives to reduce carbon. you have a more predictive revenue source in a gasoline tax. it could be a source for financing our roads, bridges, transit systems. we only had a reauthorization of our program to the end of next year. the gasoline tax will not produce enough revenue to keep the current levels longer-term. we're looking for revenue sources that are positive, that we could get bipartisan support such as a carbon tax to help finance the next transportation bill. helping us with an energy program could be the way to go. >> do we have anymore questions by e-mail? >> this is from the office of research services.

has anyone attempted to put into dollars how much time is wasted creating, reviewing, and implementing contingency plans for sequestration, particularly by high-level staff that need to constantly be in meetings on this topic? the savings from that wasted time alone might pay for some of the cuts. >> dr. collins just whispered to me that that is true. we want your creative people here to do the work that they are trained to do. we want you to discover the next year or dread disease. we want you to figure out how to energize creative innovator is on research, providing the basic research so that the life science companies that are out there can create more jobs and do their things. that is what we want you to do.

when you are distracted and doing all of these contingency plans. worse than that, when you are holding back on what you would like to do, it is the time you spent in planning, it is the time and the energy we lose by uncertainty. i want to make right decisions, don't get me wrong. no decision at times it is better off than no decision. the uncertainty of how the future is going to be. it is way past time for congress to give you a definitive answer. as when i sought the chance to talk to the president on wednesday, i have stressed the point to get the sequestration and the game hand last said that we can give you that kind of predictability. -- and get the game plan passed said that we can give you the kind of predictability.

>> that is what we would hope for. >> i have a question. some press reports have floated the idea or the perception that forces in congress would like to push for the sequestration because that way it would achieve their goals to cap nonmilitary spending. how true is that from your perspective? >> there are some members of congress that believe that sequestration might be ok. it would reduce discretionary spending by over a trillion dollars over the next 10 years. there is a hard-core group of members who are for reducing spending including military

spending. they don't really care too much about the concerns that we have talked about. they represent a minority. i think most members of congress, democrats and republicans agree that sequestration is wrong, even those who believe there should be further discretionary cuts believe they should be selective. they should not be across the board. if you have problems with your budget and you have budgeted to go to the movies and feed your family and you have a loss of revenue, you don't cut your spending equally. you continue the essentially important services for your family. we are not able to do that under sequestration. even those who believe that we should cut discretionary spending believe should be done other ways besides sequestration. most of the members of congress would support a more balanced approach. most believe that the mandatory side needs to be looked at more than the discretionary side. most believe that we need more revenue. >> can you spell out for us please if sequestration happens, how will this affect our jobs at nih?

>> i will do the best i can. if we reached march the first and if it becomes a more lengthy ordeal and we don't corrected within a matter of weeks, then administrative heads must produce the savings that are required in the fiscal year 13 budget. that is the budget we are currently in. they have about a seven month period to achieve a total savings. they can look at their total budget and figure out how to do it. when you are the nih, you have two major sources.

your largest source is the grants you get for research. some of those have been held back. that is very bad. very bad. dr. collins was explained to me the percentage of worthwhile grants, promising france and that are now accepted. it is that a modern time low. i believe somewhere around 17%. that means that, as dr. collins explains, he has to try to figure out who are the really great great opportunities verses the great opportunities and it is hard to draw that line. we're going to lose a lot of potential researchers. but it also can affect the work force. if you are a federal agency, 98% senator money is in salary, then your only opportunity to reach the target cost by

sequestration is to deal with the work force. you can look at turnover but there's not a lot of turnover. that is when you start looking at these horrible things called furloughs without pay. they're horrible. and in fact, it affects not only the morale of the work force but the services we are providing to the people of this country. there are really no good options on this sequestration. it should never take place. it should be replaced immediately and it should be replaced for the entire 10-year period. we will work hard to make sure that occurs. >> you mentioned that the nih is a mecca and we should try to make the public more aware of that and reach out as much as possible.

one of the things that makes that difficult this year and a ticket to have patient groups, other scientists come to us and learn from us and exchange ideas to proportionate cuts in our budget, including travel to have these groups come here. is there any thing congress can do by way of resolving to lift some of these onerous burdens which are kind of like mini sequesters to us. dr. collins could have a free hand to use the money more wisely and effectively. >> one of the first things i asked dr. collins when i saw him this morning was, where can use some more money so we can talk about the future? i don't like playing defense.

i am proud of the years in which we doubled the capacity of the nih to give grants. i was proud to be part of the congress when we did that. now, we have lost all of that momentum since the early 2000's because of the budget restraints. our first priority is to get our budget back into some semblance of order. hopefully, we can get that done this year. then we need to look at how we can give you additional tools. i happen to believe that your ability to interact with the international community is critical to your mission. you have got to be there. you have got to be able to get the energy from your colleagues around the world that helps your work here. it helps your mission. i think that is a very good point and a strong support this. let me, if i might, dr. collins, just point out that our economy is recovering.

if you look at the stockmarket, if you look at a job growth from it if you look at housing, our economy is coming back. if we get a reasonable plan, not necessarily a everything i want, but a reasonable plan for our budget, it is not difficult policy choice to make. if we get that done, our economy will continue to grow and i believe will take off. we can get back to the type editions of getting the tools to you to do you do best. i believe we will get there. i do. i believe that our future is very bright. we live in the strongest economic power in the world. yes, we have to be mindful of global competition.

there is no question about that. things are different today than they were 10 years ago. there are countries investing much more than we are in basic research. we have to catch up so that we can continue to lead the world in this critical area parent of this energy we have here is unique. it is important for our children's future and the global economy. i'm optimistic we will get it right. i think we have tools to get it right. i just thank you once again for being on the front lines. i can imagine the attacks that you get when you hear the attacks on federal workers, you cannot help but take it somewhat personally. so, i thank you for being understanding and sticking with this and serving your community as you do here in public service. i am convinced that america will continue to grow, that we will figure out a sensible way to deal with this issue.

we will do it i hope sooner rather than later and allow you to continue not only to make this senator proud but to provide a hire, better quality of life for the people in america and around the world. thank you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> the ranking member on the house budget committee will be our guest on "news makers."

you can watch that sunday at 10:00 and at 6:00 eastern time. >> mary todd lincoln. >> her four sons died, one in the white house and went after her husband's assassination sitting next to her at the theater. the times of agree that this woman was going through was amazing colts' demonized her for that. we found out she was not crazy. she was a very significant person. i hope someday we get a better view of the range of things that influenced her life. >> first ladies, influence and image, a first of a kind of

project examining the public and private lives as women who served as first lady. season one begins in just over a week. >> on the thursday's washington journal, we spoke with the inspector general about the tarp program. this is 40 minutes. host: christie romero is the inspector general for the sigtarp. guest: we are the watchdog over the bailout. when congress made the bailout, they wanted a very independent watchdog. we are a criminal law enforcement agencies so we investigate crime related to the bail out and we also watch all the dollars.

we try to bring transparency and bring oversight to this. that is what we are doing. host: christy romario is the inspector general and came up with a report recently that looks at executive pay for the companies that took belau dollars. -- that to bail out to dollars. guest: pre-for those companies, the treasury has a pay czaar and his job is to set the pay packages for each of the top 25 am pleased for each year. we did a report last year looking at pay in 2009 and 2011 and we said treasury did not fail to rein in excess of pay

and awarded a multi million pay packages to the top executives of these companies. for 2012, we continued and looked and once again, treasury awarded multimillion pay packages but it had gotten worse. host: here is that report and if you want to join the conversation -- who is responsible for that? guest: treasury is ultimately responsible. they set the guidelines on the payback in the day or roll them

back. the first pay czar told sigtarp that he was under conflicting principles -- keeping companies competitive in pay but he also ultimately wanted to make sure the employees had scan in the game. --skin in the game. he came up with some guidelines. the guidelines were supposed to balance these principles. the first guideline was cash salaries should rarely be over $500,000 and should be well under it. the second guideline was recognizing the fact that these companies were bailed out and they should be targeted at the 50th percentile of a similar company would similar employees and the third, it needs to be tied to some performance goal met later. those are the guidelines he put in place and those of the

guidelines that were ultimately rolled back. host: you are talking about kenneth feinberg who was the pay czar. what kind of amount of money are we talking about? guest: they are astounding. by treasury's own standards they are excessive. we are talking about 25 people at the company's left, aig, gm, and gmac which financed cars and did some prime mortgages -- the floor is $1 million. if you work for one of those companies and are one of the top 25 employees, treasury awarded $1 million. if you work at aig, the floor is $2 million. most got well above that. more than half of these executives the treasury approved were $3 million or more. 16 got $5 million or more.

the pay adds up to $100 million. you also have to look at cash salaries which went through the roof. all of a sudden, instead of having cash salaries rarely be over $500,000, 70% of these employees got treasury-approved cash salaries of $500,000 or more we want to look just below that and sure enough, in cash, a yearly salary, 94% got approved by treasury. on top of that, pay raises and removing the long term pay that was ties to meaningful performance measures. host: talking about a report aboutsigtarp. your report comes out and what

happens? the front page of this report says treasury is still approving excessive pay, what next? guest: 1 change so we made a series of recommendations and said treasury put in some criteria. when is it a proper for someone to be paid $500,000 in cash salary or more? they did not do that. they did not make any meaningful reforms. we are saying it again we have to bring attention to this. we have to bring attention to the american people who funded these companies and their bailout. there's a fundamental fairness issue here. as people are struggling and you have the average income of americans funding the bailout at $50,000, when you look at a gm employee who gets a $50,000 raised because gm wants to do

something extra, that was the explanation -- americans who founded the bail out needs to know that. we will continue to push for change not only at the company's left in tarp but ultimately it should shed a light on how the financial crisis was in part driven by excess of pay that led to excess of risk. that is the bigger picture that has to be looked at. when you look at aig that has now repaid tarp, treasury will no longer set the pay package but is aig going to return to their past practices? it is up to the federal reserve and now regulates a ig to make sure that does not happen. host: let's hear from mark in st. paul, minnesota. caller: the treasury is always about goldman sachs. does that have anything to do

with it? guest: that's an interesting question. how did treasury treat the larger institutions? secretary gunnar who has just left the treasury department did not actually come from goldman sachs. he was at the federal reserve bank of new york before he was treasury secretary. it raises an important issue because throughout the history of this bailout, there has been a different treatment for the large institutions than there have been for the smaller institutions. that is of critical importance. one example of that is all the energy that went into trying to get the larger institutions out of tarp, while forgetting about the hundreds of smaller banks in tarp and there are still 300 small institutions involved as

well as struggling homeowners who still need assistance from tarp - we have been trying to remind people not to give up on the people who still feel the effects of the financial crisis. host: battleground, washington, independent line. caller: i have been following this fairly closely for the last five years and i have noticed brian lamb is had excellent interviews and i have seen sheila bair from the fdic. the biggest point that everyone seems to be missing is it is not whether or not people are receiving bonuses or who has paid back on much of tarp, who cares how much they have paid back? the big point that they are missing is the glaring contradiction. the last four decades as factory workers lost their jobs and small farmers got wiped out, we were receiving these lectures

about the free market, free market capitalism, about the loss of free market capitalism and free trade agreements wiping out the american middle class. it was because we had to bowed down to the religion of the free market and what has never been repaid beentarp is the double standard that when these plutocrats got into trouble, all that garbage about the free market science and milton friedman got thrown right out the window. it is the double standard, the hypocrisy, the contradiction -- that can never be repaid, thank you. guest: the caller raises a really interesting point. this is something i put a report out on this past week. one thing we learned in 2008 was that our financial system was very vulnerable to these highly interconnected financial

institutions, too big to fill up companies and not only were they highly interconnected with each other -- we learn that their failure threatened american jobs and american pensions and mortgages. that was really shocking. i don't think regulators were prepared to deal with that. even with the bailout coming and preventing the failure of some of these institutions, there was trillions of dollars in american wealth that went out the door. that is a root cause of the financial system that has not yet been addressed. that is one of the things that needs to be addressed. the other thing that needs to be addressed is the risk- management practices which were woefully inadequate at the same companies. those are two things that need to be addressed ultimately. we can look at where we are at with the bailout and how much has been paid back but the bigger question is how did we get to a bail out and do we have a financial system that is more stable and less prone to a

crisis in the future and that is the real question. host: stick a look at the numbers -- this is a graphic from npr showing how much they got and how much they paid back. guest: allied actually owns 14%. we own 22% of general motors of there is still large institutions. the nearly 300 smaller institutions are still left in tarp the numbers may be small but they are institutions that cannot get out of tarp. the smaller banks are still having trouble and tarp was never supposed to be about

bailing out the larger institutions. it was supposed to be about helping everyone including struggling homeowners and that money is not going out the door sufficiently. host: from twitter -- guest: many americans feel strongly about this and they are looking for justice and accountability. we are a criminal law enforcement agencies so we do investigate crime related to tarp. our investigation has resulted in criminal charges against 121 people and criminal charges are not evidence of guilt but they are charges that have to be seriously dealt with. as of december 31, -- excuse me, jan., 83 people had been convicted and 35 were sentenced to prison.

we are awaiting trial on the others and prison sentences and more people will continue to go to jail and more people will look at best and for accountability. our jurisdiction is not as broad as the entire department of justice. ours is related to tarp but we will continue to do our best and the department of justice is our partner. we are an investigative agency and they are prosecutorial.

cspan test

>> order! >> order!

at ease. >> ladies and gentlemen, gner -- general dempsey. [applause] >> mr. president, secretary, and mrs. panetta, men and women of the armed forces of the united states, especially our wounded warriors, and of course, we cannot forget bravo -- i was hoping bragh would be out there for the inspection of troops. apparently, until jeremy thought differently. it is an honor here to be here for this event. we're here to show our profound

respect for secretary panetta. i recall the play "the tempest." i like to think of you as the prospero of public service. secretary has used his arts to induce a sense of public service in generations of men and women. like the knowledgeable to, he asks us to let our indulgences set him free. secretary panetta could not have served so well and so faithfully without the invaluable and untiring support of his family. sylvia, we thank you for yourself less service that have made your husband's contributions possible. [applause]

>> is quite clear that he has balanced service and self. chuck todd played a clip of you from 1989 and last week, and you have not changed. i'm sure you're mediterranean diet has helped. the olive oil for your skin, the garlic for your heart, and the red line for pretty much everything else. you speak often of you're telling heritage, and it is no secret that your mother wanted you to be a concert pianist. it is fitting that sergey richa -- rachmaninoff played his first russia on this day. but you chose to use your hands to orchestrate other kinds of

efforts. pennsylvania avenue. you and sylvia advocated for the purity of public service. then the nation called again and you answered again. so for the past four years you have led those in the intelligence and defense communities, those trusted with protecting our nation and our families. you have led the fight for the proper amount of resources. you balanced the threat of external attack with the threat of internal insolvency. you once said diversity in america is as old as this nation itself. you did more than just speak about it. you took action. you have insured our forces will be able to draw upon the very best this nation has to offer. you have overseen the fielding of new capabilities to meet the threats of tomorrow, and you have demonstrated that steadfast commitment to families and troops wherever they are in the world. your many trips to afghanistan dedicate that only too well. tonight when i depart for the

winter snows of kabul, i will carry your support to those troops and i will think about you and the potential that at some point in the future you will enjoy that warm california sun. i have been thinking a lot about what you will do about after you give up your public surface. you talked about wanting to write a book. it could be a tom clancy novel. here is some advice -- get it cleared first. i can only imagine that you might be influenced by fellow changeless monterey notable john steinbeck. he described in detail the life of immigrants, farm workers in california. in the little time i have had in the last few days, i have thought of alternative titles for your parable about the individual and the institution. so here goes. instead of "east of eden," one could be "east of the potomac." or instead of "the grapes of

wrath," i would humbly suggest "the nuts of taedium." you will recall that "taedium" is latin for "boredom." you could convert one of those bestsellers into a movie. i hear james gandolfini is available to play you again as he did. tony soprano's character was pauli walnuts. while gandolfini had to wear a wig, he captured your service. for those five decades you have never yielded to cynicism, you have always believed in the goodness of governing well. your character and competence have set the example.

in 2009 you told the graduating class of the university of maryland to go forward knowing you are greater than the challenges of your time. you have made our nation safer. you have made our men in uniform and women stronger. and you have prepared us to meet the challenges ahead in our time and in the future. for that, you have earned our eternal esteem. ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce our commander in chief, president barack obama. [applause] >> thank you. please be seated. in the years between the world wars, a young married couple in

italy packed up what few belongings that they had and boarded a boat for a new world. they passed under the statute of liberty, and went through the lines of ellis island. carmelo and cramelina panetta had no money and spoke little english. but they had a dream of a better life. they worked hard. they went west to california. they started a family and taught their sons that if they studied and worked, if they gave back to this country, that they too could share in the american dream, so today we pay tribute to their son, leon panetta, a man who has not simply lived up to the american dream, but has

helped to protect it for all of us. leon, our presence here today, members of congress, deputy secretary carter, general dempsy, and members of the joint chiefs, service secretaries, and the men and women of the greatest military that the world has ever known, all this is a reflection of our personal appreciation to you and the gratitude of a nation that you have helped keep strong and free. by the time i came into office, leon panetta and was regarded as one of our finest public servants, with an extraordinary career across more than four decades. he and sylvia have settled into the good life. their beautiful monterey, their beloved walnut farm, and leon will deny it, but i hear he was

growing restless, he wanted less time on the tractor, more time in the office, less time in california, more time in washington, interacting with the west wing and members of congress. who wouldn't? [laughter] so we gave him his wish. leon, i will always be grateful that you agreed to return to public service, and, sylvia, i am so grateful that you put up with him. your leadership of the cia will forever be remembered for the blows that we struck against al qaeda and perhaps the greatest intelligence success in american history, delivering justice to osama bin laden. [applause] by then, leon had every right

to expect that he could return home, and i admit that when we first asked him to lead the pentagon, his answer was simple -- no. but i kept asking him. i am persistent. that is how michelle married me. i just kept at it, and it is a testament to his patriotism, to his sense of duty that leon agreed to serve on this one last tour. perhaps it was the memory of his parents opening their homes up to g.i.'s headed to the pacific. perhaps it was leon, who served himself, a young lieutenant in the army. perhaps it was the experience of watching his youngest son deployed to afghanistan. what we do know is this -- as our nation's's 23rd secretary of defense, in every action leon panetta has taken, every decision he has made has been with one goal in mind --

taking care of our sons and our daughters in uniform and keeping america safe. just think of the progress under his watch. because we ended the war in iraq, winding down the war in afghanistan, our troops are coming home, and next year our war in afghanistan will come to an end. we have put the core of al qaeda on the path to defeat. we have been relentless against its affiliates. because we have a sacred obligation to our troops to take care of them like they have taken care of us, we are improving treatment of warriors, setting up support of families, and helping our newest veterans transition to civilian life, and that includes jobs our veterans need as we do nation- building at home.

because we believe in opportunity for all americans, the tenure of secretary leon panetta, the son of immigrants, a first-generation american, will be remembered for historic progress in welcoming more of our fellow citizens to military service, for the formal and final repeal of don't ask don't tell, for opening combat roles to our incredible women in uniform. in short, for making our military and our nation that much stronger. because we forged a new defense strategy, we will be better prepared for the future, better prepared to meet the threats that we face without a larger military footprint, better prepared against cyber attacks, better prepared to advance our interests in the asia-pacific

region, and after more than a decade of war, better prepared for the broadest range of contingencies. keeping us prepared will be the mission of my nominee to be the next secretary of defense, a combat veteran with the experience, judgment, and vision our troops deserve, chuck hagel. and since we are now just weeks away from the automatic cuts to federal spending, including defense, let me say this -- there is no reason, no reason for that to happen, putting our fiscal house in order calls for a balanced approach, not massive indiscriminate cuts that could have a severe impact on our military preparedness. so here today, for the sake of our prosperity, for the sake of all these men and women in uniform, and all their brothers and sisters in uniform that they represent, now is the time to

act, for democrats and republicans to come together in the same spirit that leon panetta always brought to public service -- solving problems, not trying to score points, doing right for the country, not for any particular political agenda, sustaining our economic recovery, balancing budgets. leon knows something about it, but also maintaining the finest military in history. leon, this too will be part of your legacy, for no one has raised their voice as firmly or as forcefully on behalf of our troops as you have. you have served with integrity and decency and grace. you are a reminder of what public service ought to be. you have led with heart and you have led with humor.

indeed, they say that you have never seen our wounded warriors smile as wide or heard them laugh as loud as when they get a visit from their secretary of defense. whatever the challenge, leon, you always give it to us straight, sometimes in words that cannot be repeated in public. [laughter] today, we want to make sure to thank sylvia and the entire panetta family for sharing their husband, their father, and their grandfather with the rest of us, for sharing bravo, the first dog of the pentagon. sylvia, leon's service has been your sacrifice, and we promise this time he really is coming home. leon, from your first day in uniform until today, your dedicated service to america has spanned nearly 50 remarkable years. as you review these fine troops

one last time, as you return home and walk on your farm, know that the grand arc of your life speaks to our larger american story, where you can say with confidence and pride that you have fulfilled the hopes that brought carmelo and cramelina panetta to these shores all those years ago. you made them proud. you have helped keep alive the american dream, for not only your children and grandchildren, but for all our children and grandchildren, and for that we will be truly grateful. leon, as your parents would say, grazie. god bless you, and god bless the united states of america. ladies and gentlemen, our secretary of defense, leon panetta. [applause]

>> thank you very much. mr. president, i am deeply touched by your moving words, about me, about my family, more importantly about the men and women who serve in the department of defense. all of us are truly honored by your presence, and i thank you.

let me also take this moment to thank michelle and jill biden for the outstanding work they have done in leading the joining forces initiative, which has provided great support for military families who have done so much for us. marty dempsey, i appreciate your kind remarks. marty and i have testified before congress. it was the 11th time yesterday that we have done that. and we have also done 10 press conferences together. we are developing a very convincing case for collecting hazard pay in these jobs. [laughter] as we used to say when i was in the army, there is not anyone i would rather be in the foxhole with than marty dempsey.

i cannot tell you what a privilege it has been to work with you and to work with all of the service chiefs. we have dealt with some very tough issues, and there is no way, no way that i could have done this job without your support, without your loyalty, and without your dedication. members of congress, leaders of the administration, leaders of the department of defense, distinguished guests, many dear friends who we have known over the years, sylvia and i are very thankful to all of you for coming here today. this is without question the fanciest sendoff i have ever gotten in washington. [laughter]

let me remember the words of president harry truman, who once said, "if you want a friend in washington, get a dog." and that is just what i did. and i am grateful that bravo is here today. bravo was in all of the meetings when we planned the bin laden operation, and he also sat in in many sensitive meetings and discussions i had in the pentagon. i want you to know that he has never told a soul what he heard. [laughter] he is definitely not a a leaker -- at least according to that definition of the word. [laughter] you have heard of the movie "zero dark 30."

the producer is considering a sequel called "zero bark 30." [laughter] it has been 50 years of public service, and i will and always cherish the deep and lasting friendships that i have made in washington. and i am extremely grateful that so many of those friends could be here this afternoon. i have spent a long time in this town. as the son of immigrants, as the president pointed out, i have truly lived the american dream. being an italian-american, in congress, at senior levels in the executive branch, it has been for me a very unique experience. i have never lost my awe by the

sight of the capitol and the white house at night. it is still a very special experience. i remember when i was first elected to the house of representatives, there was a member that the president may recall by the name of frank, from chicago, who came up to me and said, "panetta. that is an italian." i said, "yes, it is." he said, "good." he said, "i want you to join the italian caucus." of course, i was not going to say no to an italian from chicago. [laughter] he said, "great." he said, "we don't do much on issues, but we eat good." [laughter] and that was true. many years later, when i came

to langley as president obama's director of central intelligence, i got a mug from my family with a big cia, standing for "california italian-american." [laughter] in all seriousness, mr. president, i want to express my deepest thanks to you for the opportunity to serve this country again as a member of your administration. it has been a tremendous honor and privilege these past four years, and especially now as the 23rd secretary of defense. i hope that in some small way i have helped to fulfil the dream of my parents, the dream that they wanted, and a dream that all of us want, of giving our children a better life.

it has been for me a hell of a ride. i will never forget the pride and exhilaration when i walked out of the white house after the president announced the success of the bin laden operation, and i could hear the chants of those people who were gathered around the white house and in lafayette park yelling, "usa! usa!" thank you, mr. president, for your strong support in what was a very tough decision. the memory of that operation and the team that helped put it together, both the intelligence team and the military team, will be with me forever. i will remember traveling to combat theaters and bases around the world, looking into the eyes of brave men and women

who are putting their lives on the line every day for this country. i will remember the moments when we have honored veterans of past wars and when we have been inspired by service members and wounded warriors returning from today's wars. and i will always remember the moments of grief, when it this nation has rendered final honors to fallen heroes and when we have had to comfort their families. writing notes and condolences to those families who have lost loved ones has been for me my toughest job. these moments of selflessness, these moments of sacrifice, of

courage, of heroism give me a renewed sense of pride in our country and gives me a sense of optimism for the future. i have witnessed a new generation of americans ask themselves what they could do for their country. and i have seen a profound difference that talented men and women with a sense of duty and sacrifice can make in the life of this nation and in the life of our world. for more than a decade of war, our democracy was dependent on the men and women of the united states military to bear the awesome burden and to preserve our freedom. they have done everything the nation asked them to do and more, and i will have no greater honor in my life than to

have been able to lead them as secretary of defense. i learned a long time ago that there is not much you can accomplish in washington on your own. you need a team behind you. and at the department of defense, i have been blessed with an exceptional team, from senior civilian and military leaders all the way down through the chain of command, and together i am proud of the important achievements we have been able to accomplish for the nation. we developed and we have begun implementing a new defense strategy for the 21st century, which protects the strongest military power in the world and meets our responsibility to fiscal discipline.